## Facts

- The City of West Hollywood adopted an ordinance prohibiting non-therapeutic animal declawing within city limits, allowing declawing only when medically necessary for a therapeutic purpose.
- The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) challenged the ordinance, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- CVMA alleged the ordinance was preempted by the California Veterinary Medical Practice Act (VMPA), which regulates veterinary licensing and discipline and contains an express preemption clause limited to certain cleanliness and sanitary requirements.
- CVMA also argued the ordinance was preempted by Business and Professions Code § 460, which limits local governments from imposing separate and additional licensing requirements or other qualifications on state-licensed professionals.
- The Department of Consumer Affairs issued a legal opinion concluding the ordinance was preempted by the VMPA and § 460.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to CVMA, found preemption under § 460, and enjoined enforcement of the ordinance.
- The City appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the VMPA expressly or impliedly preempts a municipal ordinance banning non-therapeutic declawing.
2. Whether Business and Professions Code § 460 preempts a municipal ordinance that forbids licensed veterinarians from performing a specific procedure except for therapeutic purposes.
3. Whether the ordinance directly conflicts with state law governing veterinary practice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and vacated the injunction.
- The VMPA did not expressly preempt the ordinance because the statute’s express preemption clause is limited to cleanliness and sanitary requirements and does not cover substantive restrictions on particular procedures.
- The VMPA did not impliedly occupy the field of all regulation affecting veterinary practice; a comprehensive licensing scheme alone did not foreclose local police-power regulation of specific conduct.
- Business and Professions Code § 460 did not preempt the ordinance because it targets additional local licensing requirements or qualifications, not otherwise valid regulation of how professional services are performed.
- The ordinance did not create a direct conflict with state law because state law did not compel declawing or confer an affirmative right to perform any particular procedure in all localities.
- The Department of Consumer Affairs opinion was given respectful consideration but was not controlling.

## Legal Principles

- Local police-power measures are presumed valid unless state law expressly preempts them, the Legislature has fully occupied the field by implication, or the local rule directly conflicts with state law.
- Express preemption clauses are read according to their terms; a clause limited to sanitation and cleanliness does not preempt local regulation addressing different subject matter.
- A detailed state licensing and discipline scheme does not, by itself, preempt local regulation of professional conduct when the local rule neither duplicates the state licensing program nor sets licensing qualifications.
- Business and Professions Code § 460 bars local governments from imposing separate and additional licensing requirements or other qualifications on state licensees, but it does not bar local regulation of the manner in which licensed work is performed.
- Administrative legal opinions may inform interpretation but do not bind courts when inconsistent with statutory text and legislative purpose.

## Conclusion

The court held that West Hollywood’s prohibition of non-therapeutic declawing was a valid local regulation of conduct under municipal police power and was not preempted by either the VMPA or Business and Professions Code § 460, nor did it conflict with state law.


Cal. Veterinary Med. Ass'n v. City of W. Hollywood, 152 Cal. App. 4th 536, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)