Plastics Litigation Tracker

Allegations: Plaintiff, a restaurant association, brought an action against the City of San Diego, California, seeking a writ of mandate directing the city to set aside an ordinance which banned the distribution of polystyrene foam food containers. Plaintiff also sought a temporary stay and attorney's fees. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act because it had been adopted without an environmental analysis with respect to potential environmental impacts of the proposed ban. Filed 3/12/2019. See complaint here.

Status: Closed. On December 12, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement, whereby San Diego agreed to stay enforcement of the ordinance while it prepares an environmental impact report. In January 2022, the city of San Diego announced it was reconsidering the polystyrene foam ban. Affective April 1, 2023, San Diego passed an ordinance prohibiting most polystyrene foam products from being sold or distributed in the city. More than 130 cities in California have passed similar ordinances banning the foam.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a citizen, filed a putative class action against Nestle S.A. seeking damages, disgorgement of Defendant's revenues, and injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from unlawful marketing practices. Plaintiff also asked the court to order Defendant to engage in a corrective advertising campaign. Plaintiff argued that Defendant's practice of marketing of bottled water as "pure" or "purified" when it contained plastics and microplastics violated the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's unfair competition law, and California's false advertising law. Plaintiff also argued that the marketing materials constituted breach of express warranty, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Filed 4/12/2018. See complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On January 3, 2019, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that Plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claims.

Allegations: Petitioner, an industry association, brought an Article 78 action against the City of New York and Kathryn Garcia in her capacity as Commissioner of the NYC Department of Sanitation, seeking to vacate and annul the Commissioner's 2017 determination that single-serve food-service expanded polystyrene (EPS) or soft foam cannot be recycled in an environmentally effective of economically feasible manner. Petitioner claimed that the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary and capricious. Filed 4/28/2015.

Outcome: Closed, On June 5, 2018, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the Commissioner, in her decision, had addressed the material aspects of the petition with a painstakingly studied decision that was in no way rendered arbitrarily or capriciously. The petition was filed with Article 78, using the Commissioner of DSNY findings that food service EPS could not be recycled. See here the court order which included the petition. Also, as of January 1, 2019, New York City stores, food service establishments, and mobile food commissaries may no longer offer, sell or possess single-use foam food containers such as foam takeout clamshells, cups, plates, bowls, trays, and coolers. Additionally, manufacturers, distributors, and stores may no longer sell or offer for sale loose fill foam packaging (packing peanuts) in the city.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a trade association, brought an action against the City of Laredo, Texas, seeking declaratory judgment that an ordinance which banned commercial establishments from using single-use plastic or paper checkout bags was unenforceable. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was preempted by the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act. Filed 9/22/2016.

Outcome: Pending. After the district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas reversed, see opinion here. Defendant appealed. On petition for review, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the appellate court's decision holding that the Solid Waste Disposal Act preempted the ordinance, rendering it invalid. See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the City and County of San Francisco, California, seeking a writ of mandate to prevent the implementation and enforcement of a local ordinance regulating the use of plastic checkout bags by large supermarkets and retail pharmacies. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Filed 02/29/12.

Outcome: Pending. On June 14, 2012, the Superior Court of California denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the State of California, First Appellate District, affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a police power regulatory action to which the categorical exemptions of CEQA applied. See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the County of Marin, California, seeking a write of mandate to prevent the implementation and enforcement of a local ordinance banning the use of single use carryout bags. Plaintiff argued that the ordinance failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and therefore must be set aside. The county had previously determined the ordinance was categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) because it was a regulatory action designed to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of natural resources and the environment Filed 11/29/11.

Outcome: Pending. The Marin County Superior Court denied Petitioner's request for a writ of mandate and declaratory relief. The court found that there was enough evidence supporting Defendant's ordinance and the information provided in their Guidelines sections 15307 and 15308. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appelate District, Division Three, affirmed, holding that the ordinance was exempt from the CEQA. See the order here.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the City of Manhattan Beach, California, seeking a writ of mandate to terminate the IWMA Ordinance No. 2012-1 "An Ordinance Establishing A Waste Reduction And Reuse Program For Carryout Bags.” Plaintiff stated that the County failed to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before approving the ordinance. Plaintiff challenged the ordinance banning the use of single-use plastic bags alleging that it violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Filed 1/30/2012. See complaint here.

Outcome: Closed, On October 1, 2012, the court denied the petition. It found that Plaintiff failed to submit evidence, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act, showing that the ordinance might cause environmental harm. The court also found that because of Plaintiff's failure, the California Waste Management Authority's decision to not prepare an Environmental Impact Report was justified.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the City of Long Beach, California, challenging a city ordinance prohibiting stores from providing plastic carry-out bags to consumers. Filed 6/9/2011. See petition here.

Outcome: Closed. On June 9, 2011, the parties agreed to settle, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. As part of the settlement, the city signed a resolution adopting the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor's Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of its environmental review process, and retracting and cancelling any part of the addendum that was inconsistent with the EIR.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the City of Manhattan Beach, California, seeking a writ of mandate. Plaintiff challenged the city's issuance of a negative declaration regarding an ordinance banning the distribution of plastic bags at the point of sale. Filed 03/05/10.

Outcome: Closed. On April 22, 2010, the superior court granted Plaintiff's petition. Defendant appealed, and raised claims concerning standing, and whether the City of Manhattan Beach was required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR). The California Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that Plaintiff had standing, and that the city should have prepared an EIR before implementing a ban on plastic bags. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of California, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that Plaintiff had public interest standing to seek enforcement of the city's alleged duty to prepare an EIR and that corporations are not held to a higher standard than individuals in qualifying for public interest standing. However, on the merits, the court found that "substantial evidence and common sense support the city's determination that its ordinance would have no significant environmental effect." The court found that Defendant's "negative declaration was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act." See the opinion here. On August 16, 2011, a remittitur was issued and the case was closed.

Allegations: Plaintiff, an association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, brought an action against the City of Oakland, California, seeking a writ of mandate. Plaintiff challenged a city ordinance banning the distribution of plastic carry-out bags by large retailers, alleging that it failed to comply with the California Environmental Quailty Act (CEQA) and that Defendants failed to see that the Ordinance would have negative effects on the environment. Filed 11/21/2007. See petition here.

Outcome: Closed. On May 16, 2008, the court issued a judgment granting a writ of mandate in favor of Plaintiff. The court also directed Defendant to suspend implementation and enforcement of the ordinance, and to vacate and set aside the ordinance because Defendant did not comply with CEQA Code Section 21000. The court ordered Defendant to not re-enact the ordinance until it complies with CEQA guidelines. See the judgment here.