Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach
52 Cal. 4th 155
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, an unincorporated association of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors, challenged Manhattan Beach's plastic bag ban ordinance.
- Manhattan Beach Ordinance No. 2115 banned point-of-sale plastic carry-out bags and urged substitution with reusable or recyclable paper bags.
- The city conducted an Initial Environmental Study and adopted a Negative Declaration, finding no significant environmental effects from the ban.
- Plaintiff petitioned for writ of mandate seeking CEQA review and claimed public rights were implicated; the city argued plaintiff lacked standing under Waste Management.
- The trial court ruled for plaintiff on standing and required an EIR; the Court of Appeal affirmed on standing and mer its merits.
- The California Supreme Court reversed, holding public interest standing for the plaintiff, disapproving Waste Management’s heightened corporate standing, and concluding no substantial evidence supported a significant environmental impact from the ban.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing: public interest vs. corporate standing | Plaintiff has public interest standing to enforce public duties | Corporate plaintiff lacks standing under Waste Management | Public interest standing allowed; disapproved Waste Management's heightened corporate scrutiny |
| EIR requirement under CEQA | Negative declaration insufficient due to potential environmental effects from increased paper bag use | City acted within discretion; no substantial evidence of significant environmental impact | City's negative declaration supported; no significant local environmental effect from the ban |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda, 79 Cal.App.4th 1223 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2000) (disapproved elevated corporate standing for public interest)
- Green v. Obledo, 29 Cal.3d 126 (Cal. 1981) (public right/public duty standing recognized)
- Carsten v. Psychology Examining Committee, 27 Cal.3d 793 (Cal. 1980) (beneficial interest; public interest standing discussed)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007) (scope and detail of CEQA analysis; commonsense exemption context)