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

1,947 chars

7
such a nature that the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient
citizens of the state outweighs the possible benefit to the’ locality.” (Ibid.)
The Legislature’s implied intent to occupy the field to the exclusion of
local legislation “ ‘ “is not to be measured alone by the language used but by
the whole purpose and scope of the legislative scheme.” ’ ” (O’Connell v. City
of Stockton, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1068.) “ ‘ “Whenever the Legislature has
seen fit to adopt a general scheme for the regulation of a particular subject,
the entire control over whatever phases of the subject are covered by state
legislation ceases as far as local legislation is concerned.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘ “State
regulation of a subject may be so complete and detailed as to indicate an
intent to preclude local regulation.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Examination to infer
legislative intent to occupy the field is “made with the goal of ‘ “detect[ing] a
patterned approach to the subject.” ’ ” (Sequoia Park Associates v. County of
Sonoma, supra, 176 Cal.App.4th at p. 1279, quoting Fisher v. City of Berkeley
(1984) 37 Cal.3d 644, 708 (Fisher).)
With these general principles in mind, we turn to the parties’
preemption arguments.
II. Preemption Arguments
Plaintiffs argue that Ordinance No. 18-22 is preempted by state law
based on either (1) direct contradiction of Code of Civil Procedure section
1161, or (2) implied field preemption. As for direct contradiction, plaintiffs
explain that section 1161 sets out a procedural timeline for unlawful
detainer. This timeline provides tenants with three days’ notice to pay
rent/perform or quit. (§ 1161, subds. (2)–(4).) Ordinance No. 18-22, however,
extends that timeline by requiring a written warning with 10 days to cure
prior to serving any notice under section 1161. In other words, tenants have
a minimum of 13 days to cure under Ordinance No. 18-22 instead of three

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text