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

1,917 chars

9
       “[P]reemption based on contradiction applies when the local
law is ‘inimical’ to state law.” (Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at
p. 145; see City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health &
Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 743 (Riverside).)
Under contradiction preemption, “ ‘state law may preempt local
law when local law prohibits not only what a state statute
“demands” but also what the statute permits or authorizes.’ ”
(Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 149, quoting Riverside, at p. 763
(conc. opn. of Liu, J.).) “Thus, no inimical conflict will be found
where it is reasonably possible to comply with both the state and
local laws.” (Riverside, at p. 743; accord, San Francisco
Apartment Assn. v. City and County of San Francisco (2024)
104 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1227 (SFAA 2024); see Chevron, at p. 150
(“compliance with both laws must be ‘reasonably possible’ ”].) But
“when a statute or statutory scheme seeks to promote a certain
activity and, at the same time, permits more stringent local
regulation of that activity, local regulation cannot be used to . . .
frustrate the statute’s purpose.” (Great Western Shows v. County
of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 853, 868; accord, Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc. v. County of Monterey (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 153, 172; see
Riverside, at p. 760; see also, e.g., International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers v. City of Gridley (1983) 34 Cal.3d 191, 202
[“ ‘Although the Legislature did not intend to preempt all aspects
of labor relations in the public sector [by enacting the Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act], we cannot attribute to it an intention to
permit local entities to adopt regulations which would frustrate
the declared policies and purposes of [that legislation]’ ”]; AIDS
Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73, 88
(AIDS Healthcare Foundation) [state law preempted local
regulations where state law “seeks to promote higher density

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text