Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of
Manhattan Beach (July 14, 2011, S180720)
Corporations now have the ability to file citizen suits to assert public interests without facing heightened scrutiny by the courts. The California Supreme Court ruled that a coalition of plastic bag manufacturers and distributors ("Plaintiff") had standing to maintain a citizen suit to vindicate the asserted public interest in environmental quality. This means more generally that a corporation has greater freedom to bring a CEQA-based citizen suit to further the public interest in environmental quality. Additionally, the court ruled that any corporation or business interest whose operations are directly affected by a government project has standing in their own right to raise a CEQA challenge.
In 2008, the City of Manhattan Beach passed an ordinance banning
retailers from providing plastic bags to customers at the point of
sale. The ordinance adopted a Negative Declaration based on the
findings of an Initial Environmental Study made in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). This
Negative Declaration stated the initial environmental study had
determined that banning plastic bags was not an action involving
any significant impact on the environment. Plaintiff then filed
suit for a writ of mandate, asking the court to bar the city from
enforcing the ordinance until it prepared an environmental impact
report. Plaintiff claimed it had standing to bring the suit because
its public rights were at stake and its objective was that "of
an interested citizen seeking to procure enforcement of ... public
duties." The court ultimately held the Plaintiff had standing
to sue, but rejected its claims on the merits.
Previously, under the Waste Management standard (Waste
Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. County of Alameda (2000)
79 Cal.App.4th 1223, 1238), a corporation could only bring a
"citizen" suit if it could demonstrate certain factors
indicating it "should be accorded the attributes of a citizen
litigant." Here, the California Supreme Court expressly
overruled that standard. Instead, the court held that absent
compelling policy reasons to the contrary, corporate entities
"should be as free as natural persons to litigate in the
public interest." Natural persons can litigate in the public
interest, by bringing a citizen suit, when the action is undertaken
to further the public interest and is not limited to only the
plaintiff's private concerns. In other words, a corporation
still cannot bring a citizen suit if its only purpose is
competitive or commercial advantage. However, a corporation now has
the freedom to bring a citizen suit to further the public interest,
such as in environmental quality.
The court also held Plaintiff had direct standing to bring its CEQA
claims. The court held that because the ordinance would have a
"severe and immediate effect" on the business of the
plaintiff association's members, Plaintiff had the
"direct, substantial sort of beneficial interest"
required for standing. Finally, the court rejected the argument
that a plaintiff must be affected by a particular environmental
impact to qualify as a beneficially interested party in a CEQA
suit. Rather, a business interest whose operations are directly
affected by a government project has standing in their own right to
raise a CEQA challenge to the government's environmental
analysis.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.