U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. 3:26-cv-01675-WQH-JAC (Judge William Q. Hayes). Filed March 17, 2026. This page covers what is challenged, where the case stands, and who is covered by any relief granted.
This page is free to read and updated weekly, and the fee calculator needs a free EPR Atlas account.
Last updated October 25, 2026.
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California | 3:26-cv-01675-WQH-JAC (Judge William Q. Hayes) | Filed March 17, 2026 current October 25, 2026
This summary of where the case stands is not legal advice. If your exposure is material, confirm it with counsel.
SB 343, the California recyclability labeling law, on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds. The First Amended Complaint (April 7, 2026) names 21 plaintiffs, including trade associations and six California commissions; the original complaint named 18, and the amendment added the California Retailers Association, Consumer Brands Association, and Personal Care Products Council.
Preliminary injunction granted July 14, 2026, barring the Attorney General from enforcing SB 343 until further order. Four provisions were found likely unconstitutionally vague and severable, so the 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper while enforcement is paused. No notice of appeal appears on the docket as mirrored October 20, 2026. Bonta answered the First Amended Complaint on August 13, 2026 (ECF 26). On September 28, 2026 the court denied the Earth Island Institute and Californians Against Waste motion to intervene as defendants (ECF 34, 16 pages). It found the motion timely and found a significant protectable interest, but held that the proposed intervenors did not rebut the presumption that the government defendant adequately represents them, and it denied permissive intervention because their interests are adequately represented and adding parties at this stage would risk complicating and prolonging the case. The order states that the two groups "may request leave to file a joint amicus brief at appropriate stages of this action." On August 25, 2026 the court set the joint discovery plan for October 19, 2026 and the early neutral evaluation and case management conference for October 28, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. (ECF 31); the parties’ joint motion to continue (ECF 32, September 22, 2026) was granted on September 23, 2026 (ECF 33), which set the joint discovery plan for October 26, 2026 and the early neutral evaluation and case management conference for November 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.; the plaintiffs’ October 8, 2026 motion (ECF 35) states that ECF 33 also set the Rule 26(f) conference for October 14 and initial disclosures for October 28. In that motion the plaintiffs asked for leave to file a second amended complaint adding claims that provisions of SB 54 are unconstitutionally vague, deny due process and equal protection, restrict speech about how SB 54 fees are shown on receipts or invoices, and let a private entity set eco-modulated fees without sufficient government review, and adding CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and CDTFA Director Trista Gonzalez as defendants; the plaintiffs noticed the motion for November 9, 2026, with no oral argument unless the court requests it. On October 20, 2026 the docket added ECF 36, labeled Continue, and on October 23, 2026 an order on a motion to continue (ECF 37), neither with text on the free docket, so whether the October 26, October 28, and November 4 dates still stand is not known.
The October 4, 2026 compliance date passed with Attorney General enforcement barred by the July 14, 2026 preliminary injunction, which runs until further order of the court. Because SB 54 relies on SB 343 recyclability criteria to decide what counts as recyclable in California, the ruling reaches beyond labeling into the fee program.
The main filings, orders, and related events are listed in date order, and a date marked scheduled has not happened yet.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| March 17, 2026 | Complaint filed by a coalition of 18 food, agriculture, packaging, and retail groups, including trade associations and six California commissions; the First Amended Complaint (ECF 7, April 7, 2026) names 21, adding the California Retailers Association, Consumer Brands Association, and Personal Care Products Council. |
| June 3, 2026 | Preliminary injunction hearing held. |
| July 14, 2026 | Preliminary injunction granted. The court finds plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that four provisions are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment and that the law fails First Amendment scrutiny under Central Hudson. The court found the four provisions severable, so the 60 percent collection-and-sorting threshold survives on paper while enforcement is paused. |
| July 27, 2026 | Earth Island Institute and Californians Against Waste move to intervene as defendants (ECF 25); opposed August 17 (ECF 28), reply August 24 (ECF 30). |
| August 13, 2026 | Bonta answers the First Amended Complaint (ECF 26). |
| August 25, 2026 | Order denying the joint motion to vacate the early neutral evaluation and continuing the dates (ECF 31): joint discovery plan due October 19, 2026; early neutral evaluation and case management conference October 28, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Cabral. |
| September 22, 2026 | Joint motion to continue the early neutral evaluation and case management dates (ECF 32). |
| September 23, 2026 | Order granting the joint motion to continue (ECF 33): joint discovery plan due October 26, 2026; early neutral evaluation and case management conference November 4, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. |
| September 28, 2026 | Intervention denied (ECF 34). The court found the motion timely and found a significant protectable interest, but held that Earth Island Institute and Californians Against Waste did not rebut the presumption that the government defendant adequately represents them, and denied permissive intervention because their interests are adequately represented and adding parties at this stage would risk complicating and prolonging the case. They may request leave to file a joint amicus brief. |
| October 4, 2026 | The SB 343 compliance date passed with Attorney General enforcement barred by the July 14, 2026 preliminary injunction. |
| October 8, 2026 | Plaintiffs move for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF 35) adding claims against provisions of SB 54 (vagueness of the recyclability, recycling-rate, covered material category, and source-reduction provisions; due process; a First Amendment claim on how SB 54 fees may be communicated on receipts or invoices; equal protection; and eco-modulated fees set by a private entity) and adding CalRecycle Director Zoe Heller and CDTFA Director Trista Gonzalez as defendants for the SB 54 claims. |
| October 14, 2026 scheduled | Rule 26(f) meet and confer deadline set by the September 23 order (ECF 33), as stated in the plaintiffs’ October 8 motion (ECF 35). |
| October 26, 2026 scheduled | Joint discovery plan and confidential early neutral evaluation statements due under the September 23 order (ECF 33), as stated in ECF 35; an October 23 order on a motion to continue (ECF 37) may have moved this date, and its text is not on the free docket. |
| October 28, 2026 scheduled | Initial disclosures due under the September 23 order (ECF 33), as stated in ECF 35; an October 23 order on a motion to continue (ECF 37) may have moved this date, and its text is not on the free docket. |
| November 4, 2026 scheduled | Early neutral evaluation conference and case management conference at 1:30 p.m., set by the September 23 order (ECF 33), as stated in ECF 35; an October 23 order on a motion to continue (ECF 37) may have moved this date, and its text is not on the free docket. |
| November 9, 2026 scheduled | Hearing date the plaintiffs noticed for the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF 35), with no oral argument unless the court requests it. |
| Pending scheduled | No notice of appeal on the docket. |
Dates are drawn from court filings, orders, and firm alerts as reported. Where a docket is not publicly accessible the Atlas relies on secondary reporting and says so.
Status as of October 25, 2026. Docket accessed on CourtListener October 25, 2026; the mirror’s own last refresh was October 23, 2026 at 3:40 p.m. (newest entry ECF 37 of October 23, 2026, labeled Order on Motion to Continue, with no docket text on the free mirror), so any filing after that time is not visible here.
Every state guide has the fee schedule where one has been published, registration deadlines, program plan status, eco-modulation detail, the statute and any implementing rule, and exemptions.