PaintCare

PaintCare v. Mortensen

Good Law
183 Cal. Rptr. 3d 451·233 Cal. App. 4th 1292
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 2015B251351California9,404 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feuer, J.

INTRODUCTION

PaintCare and American Coatings Association appeal from a judgment denying their petition for a writ of mandate, entered in favor of California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery and its director, Caroll Mortensen (collectively CalRecycle). By their petition, PaintCare and American Coatings Association sought to invalidate regulations adopted by CalRecycle to implement and enforce the architectural paint recovery program (Program) (Pub. Resources Code, § 48700 et seq.; see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 18950 — 18958 ). They contend that CalRecycle did not have the authority to adopt regulations to implement and enforce the Program and, even if it had the authority, the regulations improperly enlarge the scope of the Program by setting requirements for manufacturers that go beyond the Program.

As we discuss below, CalRecycle had authority to adopt the regulations. Further, the regulations do not go beyond the Program because they do not dictate how manufacturers comply with the Program. Rather, they set forth what information manufacturers must provide to CalRecycle to comply with the Program. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.