"Both plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success of establishing that [Bonta] has sufficient contacts with the district to satisfy ... requirements of due process," Mehta said. "Because the court finds at this stage that it does not have personal jurisdiction over [Bonta], it does not consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims."
Still, the legal fight between the plastics groups and Bonta continues. California state courts in Sacramento are scheduled to hold hearings in September and November on enforcement of the subpoenas.
A hearing in Bonta's attempts to enforce his subpoena against the plastics association had been scheduled for Sept. 12, but the state judge postponed the hearing on Sept. 11 until Nov. 6. A similar enforcement action Bonta brought seeking to enforce his subpoena against ACC shows a Sept. 18 court hearing.
The parties sparred in a federal court hearing Aug. 28, where ACC and the plastics association said Bonta's actions violated their First Amendment free speech rights by limiting how they participated in public debates, and amounted to retaliation against them.
Bonta is seeking access to records that the plastics association had previously stored at a museum and research library in Delaware, among other documents.
From ACC, Bonta is seeking internal documents related to an ACC study on public attitudes towards chemical recycling that the chemicals group provided to the Federal Trade Commission.
Bonta's investigation is broader than the two industry groups. He has publicly disclosed also subpoenaing ExxonMobil Chemical Co.
Mehta's Sept. 11 ruling focused on narrower points of law, such as whether Bonta's office had sufficient operations in the District of Columbia, where the associations are based, and on how the subpoenas were served, to establish jurisdiction.
"The court holds that plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success in establishing that [Bonta] is subject to the jurisdiction of this court," Mehta said.
ACC said it was disappointed in Mehta's ruling and examining its options.
"Granting the injunction would have helped protect against the chilling of important free speech rights established under the U.S. and California constitutions," ACC said. "The court's decision was based on jurisdictional grounds, rather than the merits of the case.
"While we evaluate our options moving forward, we remain committed to continuing the important work our industry is doing to create a more sustainable plastics future."
