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

1,336 chars

49
conflict may arise “ ‘ “if the local legislation ‘ “duplicates,
contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law,
either expressly or by legislative implication.” ’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.) Here,
petitioners claim a conflict exists based on implied preemption of
a fully occupied field (i.e., field preemption) and contradiction.
“The party alleging preemption ‘has the burden of demonstrating’
it.” (Id. at pp. 142-143.)
       Field preemption applies when the Legislature has
expressly or impliedly manifested its intent to fully occupy the
area. (Chevron, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 142.) “ ‘[L]ocal regulation
is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a
field which is fully occupied by statute.’ ” (American Financial
Services Assn. v. City of Oakland (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1239, 1252.)
“ ‘[A]bsent a clear indication of preemptive intent from the
Legislature,’ we presume that local regulation ‘in an area over
which [the local government] traditionally has exercised control’
is not preempted by state law.” (Action Apartment Assn., Inc. v.
City of Santa Monica (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1232, 1242 (Action
Apartment.)
       Implied field preemption “occurs when: (1) general law so
completely covers the subject as to clearly indicate the matter is
exclusively one of state concern; (2) general law partially covers

Other Sections in This Document (114)

Full Text