Collateral Loan and Secondhand Dealers Assn. v. County of Sacramento CA3
223 Cal. App. 4th 1032
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- CLSDA challenged Sacramento County Code ch. 4.30 as conflicting with state pawnbroker/dealer reporting laws.
- Trial court granted a preliminary injunction only for two minor provisions; others deemed unlikely to prevail.
- Court identified conflicts in e-filing requirements, mandatory vs. optional systems, and potential costs under the ordinance.
- AB 391 (2012) amended the state scheme to fund a single statewide e-filing system, affecting 21628.
- On appeal, court held multiple ordinance provisions conflict with state law and modified injunction accordingly.
- Dispositive holding: injunctive relief extended to key e-filing conflicts and related reporting/definition provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the ordinance conflict with state pawnbroker reporting law? | CLSDA argues the ordinance duplicates/contradicts state law. | County asserts some local e-filing is permissible and not preempted. | Yes; conflicts exist and are preempted. |
| Is the elected e-filing system under the ordinance permissible given AB 391 and 21628? | E-filing must align with state system; local option conflicts with 21628. | E-filing is voluntary and can coexist locally. | Ordinance e-filing is not allowed as a statewide substitute; injunction extended. |
| Can the ordinance impose or pass through transaction fees to licensees? | Fees impose costs beyond those permitted by Financial Code. | Fees authorized to defray costs of enforcement. | Prohibition; injunction restrains transaction fee collection. |
| Can the ordinance add reporting requirements beyond state law? | Additional reporting is not authorized by state law. | Some duplicative reporting is permissible. | Injunction bars adding additional reporting requirements. |
| Does the ordinance alter the pawnbroker definition beyond state law? | Altered definition expands the class of subject to reporting. | Definition aligns with local interpretation. | Definition must be coextensive with state law; injunctive relief extended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Malish v. City of San Diego, 84 Cal.App.4th 725 (2000) (duplicative local regulation not per se preempted; but limits exist)
- Right Site Coalition v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 160 Cal.App.4th 336 (2008) (remedies on merits can affect injunctive relief analysis)
- Sourcecorp, Inc. v. Shill, 206 Cal.App.4th 1054 (2012) (addressing severability and merits in preliminary injunction context)
- Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 123 Cal.App.3d 334 (1981) (jurisdiction to adjudicate merits continuations beyond injunction)
- Gray v. Bybee, 60 Cal.App.2d 564 (1943) (procedural posture on merits vs. injunction)
- O’Connell v. City of Stockton, 41 Cal.4th 1061 (2007) (discusses preemption and regulatory occupancy by state law)
- Efstratis v. First Northern Bank, 59 Cal.App.4th 667 (1997) (standards for evaluating preliminary injunction factors)