California Legal Brief

The Rule of Fix the City, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles is that a charter city may enact an ordinance establishing a local housing and/or homelessness emergency that confers mayoral powers to address conditions within the city's territory, under circumstances where the ordinance defines different types of emergencies and powers than those provided in the California Emergency Services Act and does not conflict with CESA's coordination and mutual aid framework.

Appeal from judgment after demurrer sustained without leave to amend in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Plaintiff Appellant was Fix the City, Inc. — a party challenging the validity of the City's local housing and homelessness emergency ordinance and the mayor's emergency declaration.

Defendants Respondents were City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Council — the municipal entities that enacted and ratified the challenged emergency ordinance and declaration.

The suit sounded in mandamus and declaratory relief seeking to invalidate a municipal emergency ordinance. Fix the City sought a writ requiring the City to vacate the mayor's emergency declaration and declaratory relief that the ordinance violated CESA and other municipal code provisions.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Mayor Bass's July 7, 2023 declaration of a local housing and/or homelessness emergency under Los Angeles Administrative Code section 8.33, which conferred various mayoral powers to address unhoused city residents. The City Council thereafter renewed the emergency declaration. Fix the City challenged section 8.33 as invalid, claiming CESA preempted it and that it conflicted with other provisions of the city's administrative code.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that section 8630 of CESA does not apply to charter cities and that the definition of "local emergency" in LAAC section 8.22 did not apply to section 8.33.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether CESA preempts Los Angeles Administrative Code section 8.33 authorizing declaration of a local housing and/or homelessness emergency; 2. Whether LAAC section 8.22's definition of "local emergency" renders section 8.33 invalid.

The Appellate Court held that CESA does not preempt section 8.33 because there is no actual conflict between the statutes, as they define different types of emergencies with different triggering conditions and confer different powers, and CESA does not expressly or impliedly occupy the field of local emergency declarations. The court further held that LAAC section 8.22 does not invalidate section 8.33 because the City Council either understood section 8.33's conditions to constitute an "occurrence" under section 8.22 or intended to establish an additional type of emergency under its authority.

The case is inapplicable when the local ordinance actually conflicts with CESA's provisions, when a non-charter city attempts to enact similar emergency powers without constitutional home rule authority, or when the emergency declaration requires coordination with other political subdivisions or mutual aid as defined in CESA.

The case leaves open whether section 8630 of CESA applies to charter cities, the scope of charter cities' authority to declare emergencies not covered by CESA, and the specific immunities available under local emergency declarations versus CESA emergencies.