Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)

Citation: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Parent Document: Barrientos v. 1801-1825 Morton LLC (2009)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2009-10-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3065171/barrientos-v-1801-1825-morton-llc/ ↗

Full Text

1,119 chars

[2] The presumption against preemption applies here.
When “Congress has legislated in a field which the States
have traditionally occupied, we start with the assumption that
the historic police powers of the States were not to be super-
seded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and mani-
fest purpose of Congress.” Wyeth, 129 S. Ct. at 1194-95
(alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). The City of
Los Angeles has “ ‘traditionally strong interests in local rent
control.’ ” Topa Equities, Ltd. v. City of L.A., 342 F.3d 1065,
1071 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kargman v. Sullivan, 552 F.2d
2, 6 (1st Cir. 1977)). Morton is required to demonstrate “a
conflict between a particular local provision and the federal
scheme, that is strong enough to overcome the presumption
that state and local regulation of [local rent control] matters
can constitutionally coexist with federal regulation.” Hillsbor-
ough County, 471 U.S. at 716; see also Geier v. Am. Honda
Motor Co., Inc., 529 U.S. 861, 885 (2000) (“[A] court should
not find pre-emption too readily in the absence of clear evi-
dence of a conflict.”).

Other Sections in This Document (60)

Full Text