‘PETA v. Monterey Zoo’ Case Summary

Case Name: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Monterey Zoological Society, Inc. and Charlie Sammut
Index Number: 20-cv-002113
Court: Superior Court of California for Monterey County

In August 2020, PETA Foundation counsel filed suit in Monterey County Superior Court against Monterey Zoo and its president, Charlie Sammut, alleging that the facility engaged in unlawful business practices by using canes to threaten and control elephants in violation of state laws. PETA’s lawsuit asked the court to order the roadside zoo to stop this cruel practice, move the elephants to an accredited sanctuary, and prohibit the facility and Sammut from owning or exhibiting elephants again.

The lawsuit was based on California’s ban on bullhooks—weapons that resemble a fireplace poker with a sharp hook on one end—and other devices “designed to inflict pain for the purpose of training or controlling the behavior of an elephant” and on the state’s worker safety laws that require employers to provide safe places of employment. At the time PETA filed suit, it understood Monterey Zoo to be the only facility in California controlling elephants by using old, circus-style “free contact,” in which handlers share the same unrestricted space with elephants and use domination, force, and punishment to compel their obedience. The lawsuit also highlighted the history of elephants who died at the roadside zoo under suspicious circumstances, including one who was euthanized after being unable to stand due to a painful joint condition and another whose death was hidden from the public but whose necropsy revealed that she had ingested a large amount of sand that then blocked and ruptured her large intestine, which eventually caused blood poisoning.

After filing the lawsuit, the PETA Foundation litigation team was joined by co-counsel from K&L Gates LLP.

PETA Wins an Appeal Following Defendants’ Attempt to Respond With an Anti-SLAPP Suit

The defendants fought back with an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) lawsuit against PETA, arguing that because facility employees recited elephant facts while using canes to control the animals, their actions were protected speech on matters of public interest. The trial court agreed with the defendants and ruled against PETA.

PETA appealed to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District, arguing that talking during challenged conduct doesn’t transform it into protected speech and trigger fee-shifting against plaintiffs. In March 2023, the Court of Appeal agreed and elaborated “These uses of free contact and canes reflect the defendants’ preferred approach to elephant husbandry generally, independent of defendants’ ability to communicate basic facts about elephants or encourage an interest in conservation. That defendants’ use of free contact also facilitates their hosting of elephant encounters does not transform the protected speech potentially delivered in these encounters, time permitting, into the basis for PETA’s complaint.”

The court further explained that not using canes would have only “an incidental effect on how the Zoo chooses to showcase its elephants when and if its staff read from their scripts,” which was supported by the fact that “all other zoos in California provide educational presentations to the public without resort to … use of canes” and that the defendants had not explained why they couldn’t deliver the same scripts without using canes. The court also explained that:

The defendants’ use of canes “appears on this record to further … not the Zoo’s educational speech but defendants’ ability to monetize access to the elephants by directing the elephants within arm’s reach of private audiences.”

—Court of Appeal of the State of California, Sixth Appellate District

This point was reinforced by testimony on the record from elephant experts at the Oakland Zoo in California and The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee that the defendants’ use of canes was designed for negative reinforcement and that safe, educational presentations could be offered from behind appropriate barriers.

As part of the decision, a prior award of fees and costs against PETA was reversed, and Monterey Zoo was ordered to pay PETA’s appellate fees and costs.

Settlement Follows Removal of Elephants From Monterey Zoo

During litigation, the roadside zoo transferred its sole surviving elephant to another facility. The parties ultimately settled the lawsuit, and Monterey Zoo has stated publicly that it has “no plans to bring elephants back.”