LIC v. Alexandre Family Farm
On September 30, 2024, Legal Impact for Chickens filed an animal-cruelty suit against Alexandre Family Farm. The well-known dairy has several thousand cattle and sells its milk at Whole Foods.
LIC filed its complaint in California’s Humboldt County Superior Court.
On February 7, 2025, Alexandre filed a demurrer. LIC responded in opposition to Alexandre’s demurrer on March 3, 2025. LIC’s brief explained: “This Court is empowered to hear this case, and, if the Court ultimately deems appropriate, to enjoin such cruelty.”
On March 14, 2025, the Humboldt County Superior Court heard oral argument. Judge Timothy Canning presided. LIC’s Equal Justice Works fellow, Isabella Nilsson, argued for LIC. Also in attendance were LIC’s co-counsel, the compassionate and knowledgeable Megan Yarnall and Frank J. J. F. Martin of Eureka-based Janssen Malloy LLP.
In a victory for animals and for the rule of law, the Humboldt County Superior Court overruled defendant Alexandre Family Farm’s demurrer, allowing LIC’s cruelty case to proceed. See Legal Impact for Chickens v. Alexandre Family Farm, LLC, 2025 WL 1928044 (Cal.Super.).
The well-reasoned eight-page ruling acknowledged LIC’s power, as a California society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA), to prevent cruelty through civil litigation: “[T]he Court finds that an SPCA filing and prosecuting a civil action to enjoin violations of animal cruelty laws . . . is one of the multiple avenues for the enforcement of California’s animal cruelty laws.”
Alexandre then filed an answer denying all allegations.
Next, on July 3, 2025, Alexandre petitioned the California Court of Appeal for the First District for a writ of mandate against the Humboldt County Superior Court itself. Alexandre asked the appellate court to intervene in the LIC v. Alexandre lawsuit by ordering the superior court to change its mind and dismiss the case after all. So LIC retained a powerful team of California appellate lawyers: Robert Roth, Susan Horst, M.C. Sungaila, and Melanie Gold of the Complex Appellate Litigation Group (CALG). Susan previously served as the writ attorney for the First Appellate District, and is one of the only practicing attorneys in California to have devoted virtually her entire career to appellate writs.
Photo by Coolcaesar
And on August 4, 2025, LIC filed its Preliminary Opposition to Alexandre’s Petition for Writ of Mandate with the appellate court. LIC explained: “More than 120 years ago, the Legislature created a statutory scheme that appoints humane societies and SPCAs to assist overworked law enforcement agencies in enforcing animal welfare laws.” LIC is such a humane society and SPCA. Thus, as LIC’s brief explained, the Humboldt County Superior Court correctly allowed this animal cruelty case to proceed.
The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the Sierra Foothills moved to submit a joint amicus brief supporting LIC’s position on September 2, 2025. The SPCAs explained: “Because local law enforcement agencies are often overburdened with cases and unable to focus sometimes on even the most egregious acts of animal cruelty, the California Legislature has expressly granted societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals around the state the right to assist in that enforcement.” Sonya Z. Mehta of Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta and Bruce Wagman of Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila authored the brief.
Caru Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Caru SPCA) moved to submit an amicus brief to support LIC’s position as well, on September 4, 2025. Caru stated: “While enforcing laws relating to animals is an issue of public interest, the legal issue raised by the trial court’s ruling and presented by the petition has already been addressed by an appellate court, so there is no significant issue of law raised here.” Specifically, Caru recounted the published appellate ruling in Caru v. Anthony, where the Court of Appeal acknowledged Caru’s own power to enforce laws relating to animals. Attorney Cristina Kladis of the Animal Legal Defense Fund authored Caru’s brief.
Also on September 4, 2025, LIC filed an answer to a group of bull-riding and ag industry entities who weighed in on the case.
Happily, on September 11, 2025, the California Court of Appeal summarily denied Alexandre’s writ petition! Alexandre Fam. Farm, LLC v. Superior Ct. of Humboldt Cnty., No. A173676, 2025 WL 2826613 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2025). The case then returned to Humboldt County Superior Court. And the parties have began discovery, a legal process where each can demand and receive information from the other, as well as from third parties. As part of this process, LIC submitted third-party subpoenas to auction yards and law enforcement agencies.
Alexandre objected to LIC’s subpoenas and moved to quash some of them. In its motion to quash, Alexandre once again renewed its previously rejected argument that LIC lacks standing. The superior court held a hearing on the motion to quash on March 20, 2026. Frank Martin represented LIC and defended LIC’s right to participate in the discovery process. LIC filed an opposition on May 20, 2026 with help from LIC’s co-counsel at the esteemed public interest law firm, Greenfire Law, PC.
The Humboldt County Superior Court then once again ruled for the animals! On May 27, 2026, the court denied the Alexandres’ motion to quash LIC’s subpoenas. The court’s ruling reiterated that California “statutes authorize an SPCA such as Legal Impact for Chickens . . . to ‘proffer’ a complaint for violations of state and local laws enacted for the protection of animals.” See Ruling and Order on Defendants’ Motions to Quash Five Subpoenas at 3, LIC v. Alexandre, No. CV2401841 (Cal. Super. Ct. Humboldt Cnty. May 27, 2026).