Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)

Citation: Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Parent Document: Apartment Assn. of Los Angeles etc. v. City of Los Angeles (2026)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2026-05-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10859038/apartment-assn-of-los-angeles-... ↗

Full Text

1,962 chars

2      Field preemption applies when the Legislature has
expressly or impliedly manifested its intent to fully occupy the
area. (Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 142.) “ ‘[L]ocal regulation
is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a
field which is fully occupied by statute.’ ” (American Financial
Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252.)
“ ‘[A]bsent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the
Legislature,’ we presume that local regulation ‘in an area over
which [the local government] traditionally has exercised control’
is not preempted by state law.” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v.
City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1242 (Action
Apartment).)
       Implied field preemption “occurs when: (1) general law so
completely covers the subject as to clearly indicate the matter is
exclusively one of state concern; (2) general law partially covers
the subject in terms clearly indicating a paramount state concern
that will not tolerate further local action; or (3) general law
partially covers the subject and the adverse effect of a local
ordinance on transient citizens of the state outweighs the
possible municipal benefit.” (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of
Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1157-1158; accord, Chevron,
supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 142; see, e.g., Birkenfeld, supra, 17 Cal.3d
at pp. 149, 152 [local regulation requiring landlords to obtain
certificates of eviction before seeking repossession of rent-
controlled units preempted because state law fully occupied the
field of landlord’s possessory remedies]; Apartment Assn. of Los
Angeles County, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th
119, 132 [Legislature intended state law to fully occupy the field
regarding the period of time a tenant’s rent payment is frozen
after termination of a landlord’s Section 8 agreement; thus, a
municipal ordinance purporting to confer greater protections on
tenants was preempted].)

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text