Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)

Citation: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Parent Document: Action Apartment Ass'n v. City of Santa Monica, 41 Cal. 4th 1232 (2007)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2007-08-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5608052/action-apartment-assn-v-city-of... ↗

Full Text

973 chars

We review the Court of Appeal’s determination that the litigation privilege preempts the entirety of section 4.56.020(i)(l). “ ‘If otherwise valid local legislation conflicts with state law, it is preempted by such law and is void.’ ” (Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 4 Cal.4th 893, 897 [16 Cal.Rptr.2d 215, 844 P.2d 534] (Sherwin-Williams), quoting Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 878, 885 [218 Cal.Rptr. 303, 705 P.2d 876] (Candid Enterprises, Inc.).) “[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. (Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1149 [45 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 136 P.3d 821].) “The party claiming that general state law preempts a local ordinance has the burden of demonstrating preemption.” (Ibid.)

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text