Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)

Citation: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Parent Document: Cal. Apartment Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-12-18
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10761039/cal-apartment-assn-v-city-of-pasadena/ ↗

Full Text

1,908 chars

50
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 v. City of Berkeley
(1976) 17 Cal.3d 129, 149, 152 (Birkenfeld) [local regulation
requiring landlords to obtain certificates of eviction before
seeking repossession of rent-controlled units could not stand
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 following termination of
a Section 8 agreement; thus, a municipal ordinance purporting to
confer greater protections upon the tenant was preempted].)
      Local legislation is “contradictory” when it is inimical to
general state law. (City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients
Health & Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 729, 743.) “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.” (Ibid.)
“Thus, no inimical conflict will be found where it is reasonably
possible to comply with both the state and local laws.” (Ibid.;
accord, San Francisco Apartment Assn. v. City & County of San
Francisco (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1227 (SFAA IV).)
However, “ ‘[w]hen 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

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text