official i'm sorry i think we reduced the time to ten minutes in this case do you get the notice i did ok did you read the time to ten minutes for each side sorry about that one ok thank you individual they have certain questions and answers and the e meter tells them if they've read certain levels of spiritual analysis and they pay money to engage in this specific act in hernandez the issue was do the payments made to the church of scientology constitute is that a charitable donation that could be written off for tax purposes or is it not and the key determining factor in that case in hernandez was  fact that there was a quid pro quo expectation there the person making the payment expected to receive something in return that's also the key fact that differentiates the payments or donations that are made in  case that bar from ordinary going to your point about it being a business practice it is your it doesn't on one basis on which the district court ruled against what about article three standing how do you happen to know the district court found in your favor article three standing the district court did rule in our favor on that and we would submit as well that the standing under the unfair competition law is even more stringent than article three standing because you have to have  article three standing through your inner diversion of organizational resources and how that affects your mission you have to show what affected your mission i think you define your mission as education at because the accounts the practice that mission affected by what the fish was doing in this case by engaging in specific illegal acts by performing the part ritual in an illegal manner united poultry concerns which seeks to educate all practitioners of compart and inform them that there are other ways to perform this ritual without killing chickens whether it's legal done legally or not the fact that they're doing it doesn't stop you from telling people not to do it with a sure mission it's the fact that they're doing it illegally that united culture concerns you know has to choose between having more entities that are doing this  less and if these that you had concerns with then need to spread their resources around trying to i'm not sure i understand that at the time the united poultry i guess east coast its diversity case that they they probably only became aware of this particular defendant in the past few years but upon again and so i learned about it within the last two years is that right i said few years but it and spent a few hours confirming what you all had already seen do be aware of that the defense were still using chickens as part of its process  she called the benson was i guess physically present during the ritual i'm just trying to figure out how this was a diversion of resources that was frustrating united pole trees mission right and it wasn't just finding out that they were using chickens mr no actually expended a great deal of time interacting with various officials particularly when the defense in this case were making the claim and maybe they were that they were giving these carcasses to the poor to food banks which is completely illegal because they're unrefrigerated it's not done at a u s d a licensed slaughterhouse which is another big issue in this case but how is your mission affected because instead of dealing with acts there being done legally she's now spending time money and resources and it doesn't have to be a lot kwikset establishes that even the most trifle of an injury as long as there's economic injury suffices and then the number of partners case which is this is directly analogous to that was a case where animal legal defense fund hired an investigator to go to a restaurant that was illegally selling in violation of california's ban on fox and they were doing it by selling an expensive salad that came with this free they called it a time of your mission and i thought that if i recall correctly united poultry has as part of its its mission a goal to convince the defendants to use quoits rather than chickens a factor are they giving these are they in fact giving these chickens to the food banks because that's illegal and determine exactly what they're doing when she finds out that well now because they can't give them to a food bank they're going to throw them in the trash or dispose of them that is the specific act that we contend makes this mass slaughter in a parking lot the legal if that was done for a secular purpose or without it we don't have enough to look at the religion you can't kill an animal for the purpose of disposing of the animal lessers a specific law allowing it i seeing your main argument was that this the now was diverted somehow from the normal mission you know to expose this but she didn't expose anything here it was already were already aware that we were not aware of what they were doing with it we were aware they were using chickens we were not aware of what they were doing with the chickens at the time that miss dinah got involved they were saying that they were giving them to a food bank even ag official came in and said you can't do that make sure that they were going to do that and then we didn't know where these carcasses went and then she determined by spending time resources that the way that they're doing it by doing it at this parking lot which is not a clearly u s d a license so our house is there simply disposing of the chickens so that's something we shouldn't even have to have to be there when i say we i mean you know you put your concerns they shouldn't even have to be dealing with this a mass illegal slaughter of chickens in the parking lot their mission is to protect it to promote humane treatment of animals and convince people to respect emmons so the fact that they're not having to deal with these illegal acts this fits directly under the now case where where it's to counteract the effects of the defendant's  leged misconduct as long as it's not done in anticipation of litigation that satisfy as you see all standing but that you know they were killing the chickens right now it seems like that was your mission but if they were doing it legally then there's and then there's nothing else there's no research being diverted or expended dealing with an illegal act but it's the fact that it's being done illegally in our view that there is the diversion resources but the fact that they're killing and disposing of chickens in a parking lot is what makes it not only illegal but also a diversion of an organization resources whose whole mission is to be out there educating people that are killing chickens and saying hey you can use point a set or you can treat the animals more humanely they should even have to be there at this particular parking lot work which is not set up to legally kill chickens you can't get into a food bank that's illegal you can't so that makes the actually really should go to a less and slaughter house like they did in twenty sixteen and animals can use your food do you want to reserve any of your time i'd like to he their religion in particular a centuries old jewish ritual in peace and yet for more than two years and three holiday seasons they've been harassed by a purported pro chicken not for profit organization from maryland that is somehow claiming that it is not only gravely concerned but supposedly injured by this practice they belittle the practice as french and not mainstream and then they attempt to use the machinery of the courts to end a religious practice that's performed by a religious minority that has said it has survived centuries of persecution the court ruled on the merits of the love below that the statute at issue telephony is unfair competition law cannot be the state of california which has jurisdiction to pursue any acts of animal cruelty if they think they occurred has declined to take action here because my clients have done nothing wrong there planets have article three standing and now you say that they don't have standing our can't make out  but do you concede that they have article three standing they absolutely do not have article three standing the reason they don't have article three standing is because of what the this court said in law in the decision in two thousand and ten that for an organization to sue on its own behalf and to have standing it has to show both a diversion of resources and a frustration of its mission and the court goes on to say that you can't manufacture injury by injecting yourself into a situation that doesn't otherwise affect you and so the courts have often pointed to the supreme court's decision for example and havens realty and havens realty the plaintiffs was left with two situations either of which would result in harm so in havens realty if the plaintiff injected itself into the situation and sued or attacked the religious just at the racial discrimination they would have to spend money and thus suffer harm alternatively if they didn't pursue to try to pursue litigation to try to stop the racial discrimination and just stuck to counseling which is what they did the counseling would be made more difficult by the racial discrimination so they were left with two instances either of which would result in harm they couldn't pick one or the other without being harmed that's not true here the plaintiffs could stick to their mission which is educating and advocating for what they believe is the right treatment of animals and they will suffer no harm whatsoever the only claimed harm here the only claim diversion advance or cause is that any organization from maryland has decided to inject itself into normalcy that is in orange county california that would otherwise not affect it and that's why it doesn't have standing because it's not an issue of whether they diverted resources the courts are clear diverting resources to pursue something that is not otherwise affecting you does not give rise to article three standing that's exactly what this court said in law a saucy assume it cannot manufacture in injury by including litigation costs or simply choosing to spend money fixing a problem that would not otherwise affect the organization the court went on to say plaintiff must instead show that it would have suffered some other injury if it had not diverted resources to counteracting the problem and that's why the havens realty case from the supreme court is different that either option both an arm injury to them if they tried to deal with the problem by suing they would lose money if they chose not to deal with the problem there their counseling became more difficult the court said because they would have to figure out how to work around the racial that you can't come after the fact and throw declarations or arguments you have to have it in the complaint and they have nothing in the complaint alleging that had they not chosen to send out this investigator and inject themselves into something in orange calif county california had nothing to a different you're versatile there are certainly other hot organizations around the country it's my understanding your honor well they're all separate corporations i don't i don't know the answer to that whether they are not i don't i don't believe there's any alleged in i don't believe there's an allegation in the complaint i don't believe there's any evidence in the record of them being a same organization nationwide thank you so i believe that that that problem that there is a fundamental flaw in the article three standing argument that the plaintiffs make that they have not alleged that had they chosen not to inject themselves into the situation that there would have been any effect on their activities there's a lot of discussion about the napa partners case that's a state court case that has nothing to do the point which is of course well established that under prop sixty four you only have standing as a plane if you are someone who was transacting with the defendant that in fact that kwikset case the california supreme court case says that prop sixty four requires that you be somebody who had quote business dealings with the defendant there's no allegation of that here there's no allegation that plaintiff participated in or purchased or in any way had any business dealings with my client and so they also have a significant u c l standing problem assuming the court gets to that but as the court knows the judge the article three jurisdictional issue has to be resolved first we also believe that the court below rightly decided the unfair competition as any unlawful unfair or fraudulent business act or practice that this is a statute about commerce it's the statute about business acts it's a statue about commercial activities and what the court below rightly concluded is that a religious activity a religious ritual is not a business activity and while it is the selling of chickens though a business activity they've they tried to separate that out from the religious ritual inside they're selling chickens they you know when it was enjoying for a while it was done in a parking lot of a store and it's because of that they view it as a business practice so they certainly allege they do in their their brief on appeal try to separate out the various aspects of the ritual what i would point the court to is what they say in a complaint which is in paragraphs eleven and thirty five they allege that the ritual killing is what they're challenging in fact the only thing that the statute at issue the animal cruelty statute addresses and so the only thing that could be challenging is the killing of the animals now to the extent that there is money exchanged in connection with that really religious ritual i would say that that in fact is true of every little religious ritual to a varying degree of of directness in other words religious rituals cost money to conduct whether that's communion at a church or whether that's any other any number of other types of rituals that various religions engage and there's always some money in it it's not every religion is as direct as please make a contribution of x amount in order to engage in this particular ritual but all of those religious institutions operate based on fines and there's fines delivered at some point by the participants or the organization would continue and so i think the fact that in this instance the money is more directly connected doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is  using a statute that's about business x to challenge not the money because that the statute doesn't prohibit the money the animal cruelty statute deals with the killing of the chickens which the complaint alleges repeatedly is a  ritual a religious act in which the participants believe they are transferring their sins and that the animals then killed as atonement for those sins that's what they're attacking and that is a religious activity that should not be the statute should not be stretched to pull that core religious activity as the complaint alleges into the definition of a business act i see that i'm out of time if the court has any i think counsel just to clarify one thing certainly if if in fact there is no article is certainly as i understand the law that if the court does not have article three standing the court may not reach the merits of the case obviously it would be in my client's interest to have the merits addressed once and for all but i do believe that article three standing is a prerequisite in order for the court to have jurisdiction to decide that thank you your hon even restitution required you just have have to have been required to have lost money or property somehow and it goes into very detail and as a scientist money or property you get you had no business you agree you had no business dealings with the shot and there was racial discrimination they chose that as their mission then they could choose well do we sue the folks that are engaging in racial discrimination all your business dealings is what sewing that's the one thing that you cannot have as a basis for standing is preparation for litigation but the advocacy and the fact and exposing and working with officials in trying to stop the illegal act that's what united culture concerns has done and is doing and when i think the money you expended on that correct ms stein i was expenses and as well as payments to her as as an independent contractor and the work she did trying to stop the practice exactly the work she did trying to stop the practice and that work was diverted by the illegal acts of defendants that is organizational standing to a t it's rooted in it doesn't necessarily require economic injury you can have aesthetic and you can have other types of injury to have article three standing but you're claiming economic injury you're not relying on any other form of standing here correct that's correct we are and we must in order to have you see our standing which i would submit automatically gives us article three standing and the ritual slaughter that has been referred to that's in the health and safety code that's a particular type of slaughter kosher or hot solder it is a business practice and the fact that there's a quid pro quo payment here this isn't just a general donation that's made this is a payment with the expectation of something in return that's what makes it a business how is it different from buying candles on a church to lie because you know in a church well if it that's a specific transaction then that would be a business practice or because you would be good for purposes of i go into a church and there are three little church and the side says i want to light a candle for someone and i pay five to the candle i mean gaged in a business that's a business practice with the church that that would be a business practice with the church if the camels had say lead in it or something toxic and u c l claim was brought that would be a perfectly valid claim the church would not be allowed just because their religious institution decided don't get what i'm praying for that's not to harm the right mr martin's thank you very much the case of united poultry concerns versus a pot of irvine is submitted