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

1,964 chars

11
substantive change can be difficult”]; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008)
Actions, § 45 [describing “the difficult and controversial preliminary
determination whether the matter is one of procedure or substance”].)
      Law is not necessarily procedural or substantive because it “ ‘takes a
seemingly procedural [or substantive] form.’ ” (In re Jackson (1985) 39 Cal.3d
464, 471.) The classification is difficult to draw in the real world because law
can be substantive but still have a “procedural impact.” (Educators, supra,
20 Cal.App.5th at p. 518.) As the United States Supreme Court has
explained, “Except at the extremes, the terms ‘substance’ and ‘procedure’
precisely define very little except a dichotomy.” (Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman
(1988) 486 U.S. 717, 726.) Moreover, while Birkenfeld focused on purpose of
the state statute versus the local regulation, the California Supreme Court
has cautioned that “Purpose alone is not a basis for concluding a local
measure is preempted.” (California Grocers Assn. v. City of Los Angeles
(2011) 52 Cal.4th 177, 190.) An ordinance’s purpose may be relevant to
whether it is preempted by state law, but such consideration must be done
“in the context of a nuanced inquiry” into “whether the effect of the local
ordinance is in fact to regulate in the very field the state has reserved to
itself.” (Ibid., italics added.)
      To determine whether Ordinance No. 18-22 is procedural or
substantive, we look to the familiar canons of construction and exercise our
independent judgment. (Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. City of
Berkeley (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 880, 896.) That process may involve up to
three steps. (MacIsaac v. Waste Management Collection & Recycling, Inc.
(2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1082.) First, we begin with the words of the
ordinance themselves as “chosen language is the most reliable indicator of its
intent.” (Ibid.) “If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, our task

Other Sections in This Document (40)

Full Text