Latest news with #MontereyBayAquariumFoundation
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge pauses Maine lobster defamation suit pending appeal
Apr. 15—A federal judge on Tuesday paused proceedings in a defamation lawsuit Maine lobstering groups brought against a California aquarium, staying the case until broad questions about how to interpret Maine libel law are answered by an appeals court. U.S. District Judge John Woodcock had ruled in February that the suit — brought by the Maine Lobstermen's Association, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association and a handful of lobstering businesses — could proceed after nearly two years in legal limbo. The groups sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation "for making false and defamatory statements about Maine lobster fishing practices and for misleading consumers and commercial lobster buyers about the integrity of the Maine lobster harvest" after the aquarium's Seafood Watch program downgraded its rating for Maine lobster. The aquarium claimed that the lobster industry threatens the North Atlantic right whale, and that U.S. and Canadian regulations failed to adequately protect the critically endangered species. But in a new ruling Tuesday, Woodcock placed a stay on the case while the 1st U.S. Circuit of Appeals in Boston takes up questions regarding the proper interpretation of group libel issues and whether the aquarium's decision to place Maine lobster on a list of foods to avoid constitutes a protected scientific opinion. Woodcock also granted an interlocutory appeal, a relatively rare legal device used in situations where questions arise that are unrelated to the merits of the case itself, including "a controlling question of law" with substantial grounds for a difference in opinion that could "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation," according to federal law. The interlocutory appeal is focused on two points the aquarium raised in February. First, whether an exception to the group libel law should be granted in this case. The court in February ruled that the case could be exempted from the state's traditional rules on libel of a broad group, as the plaintiffs were able to demonstrate that they were uniquely impacted by the sweeping declaration on Maine lobster. Before the proceedings can resume, the appeals court must determine whether that exception "applies to defamation claims brought by a plaintiff group consisting of lobstermen who each suffered similar demonstrable economic harms as a consequence of defamatory statements made against the American lobster as a commercial product," Woodcock wrote. Second, the appeals court must determine whether the aquarium's claims about the lobster industry are protected as a matter of differing scientific opinion. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the aquarium's "scientific assertion is factually false and the speaker deliberately ignored and did not disclose the existence of contradictory evidence of which it was aware at the time it made the statements," Woodcock wrote. Depending on its findings, the appeals court could send the case back to the lower court for renewed deliberation, move to dismiss the complaint or otherwise terminate the proceedings. A spokesperson for the aquarium said it "appreciates the District Court's decision" to grant the appeal and stay proceedings. "We seek to protect our ability to share critical information with the public and welcome the opportunity the decision presents," the spokesperson said in a statement emailed Tuesday. Kevin Lipson, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, said they would brief the issues before the 1st Circuit "as it's deemed necessary," but he noted that the court could decline to take up the question of group libel applicability. "We're very confident in the trial judge's determination below, and we are confident that we'll prevail in the 1st Circuit," Lispon said on Tuesday. "This is the nature of the judicial process. It is a cumbersome and tiresome thing, but at the end justice will prevail." In a brief filed last month, the New England First Amendment Coalition argued that siding with the plaintiffs would be an "unprecedented application of the group libel rule" and threaten news reporting. Doing so could also create a chilling effect related to scientific and public policy debate, the coalition said. Copy the Story Link
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge allows Maine lobstermen's lawsuit over 'red listing' to advance
Feb. 7—After almost two years in limbo, a federal judge ruled Friday that Maine lobstering groups can move forward with a lawsuit accusing a California aquarium of defamation. The Maine Lobsterman's Association, the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association and three lobster businesses sued the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation in 2023 after the organization's Seafood Watch program put lobster on a "red list" of food consumers should avoid. The Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation argued that it has a right to make its rating based on Maine's free speech laws. But U.S. District of Maine Judge John Woodcock ruled disagreed. "The injunctive relief requested does not seek to impose forward-looking restraints on public speech; rather, Plaintiffs merely seek the removal of statements determined to be defamatory," he wrote. Seafood Watch downgraded the rating of Maine's most valuable catch in 2022 to address industry impacts on the endangered North Atlantic right whale. Seafood Watch had originally designated the fishery as "yellow," "a good alternative" to the red list. Maine lobstermen have said that the red listing not only is false but also has caused significant economic harm to them and the Maine lobster brand. Companies like Whole Foods, Hello Fresh and Blue Apron subsequently pulled Gulf of Maine lobster from their menus, following in line with Seafood Watch's allegations. One plaintiff, Atwood Lobster, claims it lost a major purchaser due to the red listing. Bean Maine Lobster Inc., the Maine Lobstermen's Association and the Maine Coast Fishermen's Association each reported in the original filing losses in excess of $75,000. "Disregard for fact-driven analysis and its arbitrary treatment of data to suit its false narrative demonstrate the falsity of its claims that 'scientific data' shows that Maine lobster fishing practices threaten ... right whales," the plaintiffs wrote, according to the ruling. The Maine Lobstermen's Association wrote in a statement that the aquarium also has overlooked Maine lobstermen's care for marine life. "This ruling is a crucial step in holding the Monterey Bay Aquarium accountable for misleading statements that have unfairly targeted our industry," Patrice McCarron, executive director of the MLA, wrote Friday evening. "Maine lobstermen have been stewards of the ocean for generations, and we are committed to defending our livelihood against baseless claims." Woodcock wrote in his ruling that dismissing the suit before the courts determines the merits of the defamation claim and the resulting legal remedies. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has stood by its right to issue the advisory. The aquarium added information in later filings about the death of a North Atlantic right whale in early 2024, which was found entangled in Maine fishing gear. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined it died from chronic entanglement caused by the Maine gear. "This fact demonstrates the truth of (the aquarium's) statements that lobster fishing practices threaten the North Atlantic right whale," the aquarium has contended, according to the ruling. Massachusetts lobstermen filed a similar suit shortly after the Seafood Watch advisory, making the same claims of economic harm and requesting $75,000 in damages. The U.S. Northern District Court of California, where the aquarium was asking the courts to transfer the Maine suit, dismissed the Massachusetts claim after the two sides came to an agreement. Massachusetts lobstermen had concluded that "a win in the California court is highly unlikely and extremely costly," the Maine Lobstermen's Association said at the time. The aquarium declined to comment on the ruling Friday night. It is still in the process of "reviewing it and assessing our next steps," a spokesperson said. This ruling only addresses the request for dismissal. But it might provide some insight into how the lawsuit could land. Woodcock writes that the Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation has claimed the lobster advisory is based on "tentative scientific conclusions," but the watch list can easily be perceived as "conveying verifiable facts." "MBAF cannot have it both ways," Woodcock wrote. The case will now move on to discovery and proceedings, according to Kelley. Copy the Story Link
