PITTSBURGH - An animal rights organization has successfully fended off a motion to dismiss its public nuisance claim against the owner of a roadside zoo.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) is pursuing Kimberly Ann Lucas, doing business as Farmers' Inn in Sigel, alleging "inadequate conditions of captivity of numerous animals housed at the facility."
Farmers' Inn had previously been successful in having the public nuisance count dismissed, which was one of the three it faces as part of the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The other two counts, under the Endangered Species Act, were not dismissed,
The court, in its opinion backing the public nuisance count dismissal, stated that although ALDF had "plausibly alleged that a public nuisance existed," the injuries cited in the complaint - risk of physical harm and being upset at the conditions - did not reach the level of "injury in fact."
But the animal rights organization was allowed to file an amended complaint, which Magistrate Judge Patricia Dodge found could survive the motion to dismiss.
The ALDF argued that "its members were prevented from viewing and enjoying the animals ... because of the inadequate and inhumane conditions." Further, they were unable to return due to the conditions, the amended complaint stated.
Tales from individuals were included to shore up the argument that the ALDF has the standing to pursue the suit on behalf of its members, which Farmers' Inn disputed.
"In seeking dismissal of the public nuisance claim, Farmers' Inn neither argues that ALDF's individual members lack standing, nor contests that ALDF seeks to protect interests germane to its purpose," Dodge wrote in her opinion issued on October 9.
The defendant focused on the claim that the ALDF "lacks 'associational' standing" to pursue the public nuisance claim on behalf of individuals.
Dodge disagreed as she found that the ALDF, through its members who suffered aesthetic injuries because of the conditions, did have a valid argument and that the protection of animals using the public nuisance statute was central to the purpose of the organization.
US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case number 19-40