Court Denies Intervention Request in SB 343 Challenge
On September 28, 2026, the Court in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta (S.D. Cal.) denied a motion to intervene in the suit (Motion) filed by two non-profit organizations, Earth Island Institute (EII) and Californians Against Waste (CAW) (September 28 Order). As we discussed here and here, the case was filed in the spring by a group of 21 food and other industry associations (Plaintiffs), challenging the constitutionality of SB 343, California’s “Truth in Recycling” law. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of SB 343 during the pendency of the lawsuit on July 14, 2026. Less than two weeks after the issuance of the injunction, EII and CAW (Proposed Intervenors) asked the Court to let them join the case in defense of SB 343. Plaintiffs opposed the request.
In their Motion, Proposed Intervenors told the Court that they co-sponsored SB 343, supported its passage through direct lobbying efforts and public communications, and have been involved in its implementation. They argued that their “decades of experience with California’s waste management system” make them well-situated to address the factual issues discussed in the Court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. Proposed Intervenors claimed they are entitled to intervene “as of right” because their Motion is timely and their significant interests in the litigation are not adequately represented by the Attorney General (Defendant). In the alternative, they asked the Court to grant “permissive intervention.”
The Court rejected both grounds for intervention. Despite finding that “the early stage of these proceedings weighs in favor of finding [the Motion] timely,” and that Proposed Intervenors “have a significant protectable interest in the status of SB 343 and the recycling issues that the bill is purportedly designed to alleviate,” the Court ruled that EII and CAW cannot intervene “as of right” because they did not “rebut the presumption of adequate representation by the Government Defendant.” The Court likewise declined to grant their request for permissive intervention because it “has concluded that Proposed Intervenors’ interests are adequately represented by Defendant, who shares a strong interest in defending the constitutionality of SB 343.” In denying the Motion, the Court said it “finds reason to permit EII and CAW to file amicus briefs at appropriate stages during these proceedings,” citing their “relevant expertise and their continued support for SB 343 during the legislative process.”
In the Ninth Circuit, an order denying a motion to intervene as of right is a final order, meaning that it is immediately appealable, without having to wait for a resolution of the case. If Proposed Intervenors decide to appeal the September 28 Order, further proceedings in the case may be stayed pending the resolution of such an appeal. The case has already been delayed several times. As we discussed here, in August, Plaintiffs and Defendant (the Parties) asked the Court to postpone an Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) conference initially scheduled for September 24, 2026, until after the Court issued a decision on the then pending Motion. On August 25, the Court denied the Parties’ request, but granted a month-long continuance and rescheduled the ENE conference for October 28. On September 22, the Parties once again asked the Court to reschedule the ENE conference, and the Court granted that request. Barring a further stay of proceedings, the ENE conference is now scheduled for November 4, with confidential ENE statements currently due to the Court by October 26.
We will continue to monitor this case closely, as well as any appeal of the September 28 Order, and report on noteworthy developments.