S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)

Citation: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Parent Document: S.F. Apartment Assn. v. City & County of S.F. (2024)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2024-09-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10114513/sf-apartment-assn-v-city-county-of-sf/ ↗

Full Text

2,021 chars

6
Constitution provides that a county or city “may make and enforce within its
limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in
conflict with general laws.” But “ ‘ “[i]f otherwise valid local legislation
conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.” ’ ”
(O’Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1067.)
      “ ‘A conflict exists if the local legislation “ ‘duplicates, contradicts, or
enters an area fully occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative
implication.’ ” ’ ” (Sherwin–Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993)
4 Cal.4th 893, 897 (Sherwin–Williams).) Here, plaintiffs claim that there is
conflict through either (1) contradiction or (2) implied field preemption.
      Local legislation “is ‘contradictory’ to general law when it is inimical
thereto.” (Sherwin–Williams, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898.) “The ‘contradictory
and inimical’ form of preemption does not apply unless the ordinance directly
requires what the state statute forbids or prohibits what the state enactment
demands.” (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness
Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 743 (Riverside).) “Thus, no inimical
conflict will be found where it is reasonably possible to comply with both the
state and local laws.” (Ibid.)
      Local legislation enters an area that is “ ‘fully occupied’ by general law”
when the Legislature has implied its intent to do so. (Sherwin–Williams,
supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 898.) There are three “recognized indicia” of such
implied intent: “ ‘(1) the subject matter has been so fully and completely
covered by general law as to clearly indicate that it has become exclusively a
matter of state concern; (2) the subject matter has been partially covered by
general law couched in such terms as to indicate clearly that a paramount
state concern will not tolerate further or additional local action; or (3) the
subject matter has been partially covered by general law, and the subject is of

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text