R. W. AGNEW, Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents, 51 Cal. 2d 1

McCOMB, J. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment denying him an injunction that would restrain defendants from enforcing certain sections of the Municipal Code and the Electrical Code of the City of Los Angeles. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff also appeals from a minute order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction.

Since this order dealt solely with the right to preventive relief pending final judgment and denied such relief, the entry of judgment rendered the question of the right to interim relief moot. The appeals from the order must therefore be dismissed. Facts: Plaintiff is an electrical contractor, duly licensed by the state pursuant to the provisions of sections 7000-7145 of the Business and Professions Code. The Business and Professions Code (div. 3, ch. 9), sometimes called the “Contractors’ License Act,” creates a “Contractors’ State License Board,” referred to as the board (Bus. & Prof.

Code, §7000); defines those coming within the jurisdiction of the board, including electrical contractors (§7026); prohibits any person from engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without first having obtained a state license, and makes it a misdemeanor to do so (§§ 7028, 7030); provides for investigation and examination of applicants for license (§7072); requires the payment of an application fee, annual renewal fees, and penalties (§7137); makes elaborate provision for investigation of the acts of contractors, accusations against them, causes for disciplinary action, hearings, review, discipline, prosecution of violations of any law, and renewal or reissuance of suspended or revoked license (§§155, 7090-7122) ; and vests broad powers in the board relative to the licensing and regulation of contractors (§§ 7000-7145).

Wilful or deliberate disregard and violation of the building laws of the state, or of any political subdivision thereof, constitutes a cause for disciplinary action. (§7110.)

Section 7071.5 provides that before reinstatement after disciplinary action the board may require the applicant to give a surety bond or make a cash deposit conditioned upon his compliance with the provisions of the act. Every person injured by the unlawful acts or omissions of such contractor may maintain an action on the bond or a claim on the deposit.

The action instituted by plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of, and seeks to obtain an injunction restraining defendants from enforcing against him, the provisions of sections 93.0201, 93.0204, 93.0205(2), 93.0501, 93.0504 and 93.0505 of the Electrical Code of the City of Los Angeles and sections 11.00, 21.03, 21.06, 21.08, 21.09, 21.12(a), 21.12(b), 21.188 and 21.190 of the Municipal Code of defendant city.

Section 93.0201 provides that no person shall install, alter, reconstruct or repair any electric wiring regulated by defendant city’s Electrical Code without a permit from the Department of Building and Safety, hereinafter referred to as the department.

Section 93.0204 requires that an application for such permit shall be made to the department on a form furnished by the latter. The required information consists of a description of the proposed electric wiring, plans and specifications and a suitable diagram, and “such additional information as may be' considered necessary by the Department for the proper enforcement of the provisions of this Code.”

Section 93.0205 enumerates those to whom permits may be issued, including (subsection (a)-2) electrical contractors “registered” with the department.

Section 93.0501 is entitled “Contractor Registration” and provides in subsection (

a) that “Before any contractor licensed by the State of California shall be issued any permits, he shall be registered with the Department. The applicant shall provide sufficient information to enable the Department to determine if there is compliance with all applicable City and State Laws. “(

b) To register as a contractor, the responsible managing officer or responsible managing employee shall personally appear at an office of the Department and provide the following information: “1. The business name and address as listed by the Contractors State License Board; and ■“2. The names of the owners or officers of a corporation; and “3. The Contractors State License with the number and classification; and “4. The signature of the responsible managing officer or the responsible managing employee as listed by the Contractors State License Board; and “5. License Tax Registration Certificate number. “ (

c) The registrant shall notify the Department within 10 days of any change in the facts required by Subsection (b). “ (

d) No registration shall authorize any person to do work which is not within the specific classification of the registration. “(

e) Every such registration shall expire on June 30 of each year. ’ ’

Section 93.0504 defines the regulations to which the foregoing certificate of registration shall be subject: “1. Certificates of Registration shall not be transferable. “2. Certificates of Registration shall become void 30 days after the holder who qualified by examination or experience ceases to have effective control over the work performed. “3. Every Certificate of Registration shall expire on June 30 of each year unless sooner revoked or suspended by the Board.

A Certificate of Registration may be renewed within 30 days after expiration without examination upon the pay- ' ment of the annual registration fee as prescribed in this Code. “4. The Board may revoke or suspend any Certificate of Registration for failure, refusal, or neglect of the holder to comply with the provisions of this Code or any provision of

Section 98.00 of the Municipal Code as set forth therein. “5. No Certificate of Registration shall authorize any person to do work which is not within the specific classification of the Certificate of Registration.”

Section 93.0505 has no application to the issue presented on this appeal. The Law. A local municipal ordinance that is in conflict with a general law adopted by the Legislature is invalid if it attempts to impose additional requirements in a field that is preempted by the general law. (Cal. Const., art. XI, §11; Tolman v. Underhill, 39 Cal.2d 708, 712 [4] [249 P.2d 280]; Pipoly v. Benson, 20 Cal.2d 366, 370 [125 P.2d 482, 147 A.L.R. 515] ; Atlas Mixed Mortar Co. v. City of Burbank, 202 Cal. 660, 663 [2] [262 P. 334]; Pasadena School Dist. v.

City of Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7, 9 et seq. [134 P. 985, Ann.Cas. 1915B 1039, 47 L.R.A. N.S. 892]; James v. Myers, 68 Cal.App.2d 23, 27 [1] [156 P.2d 69].) Question: Has the state, by the adoption of division 3,

chapter 9, sections 7000-7145, of the Business and Professions Code, preempted the field of regulating contractors f Tes. The sections of the Electrical Code of defendant city provide: i. No person shall install wiring without a permit from the Department of Building and Safety. (The Business and Professions Code prohibits any person from engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without first having obtained a license and makes it a misdemeanor to do so [§§ 7028, 7030].) ii.

To obtain a permit, one must submit proposed plans and “such additional information as may be considered necessary by the Department for the proper enforcement of the provisions of this Code.” (The Business and Professions Code provides for investigation and examination of applicants for licenses [§7072].) iii.

To obtain a permit, the contractor must have registered with the department, and in order to register the contractor must appear personally at an office of the department and provide certain information, including his “License Tax Registration Certificate number.” (The Business and Professions Code, in addition to prohibiting a person from engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor without first having obtained a state license, provides for investigation and examination of applicants for licenses.) iv.

In order to obtain a license tax registration certificate number, the contractor must pay the city clerk a fee based on the amount of his gross receipts. (The Business and Professions Code requires the payment of an application fee, annual renewal fees, and provides for certain penalties [§7137].) v. The registration certificate of the contractor can be revoked or suspended for “failure, refusal, or neglect of the holder to comply with the provisions of this Code or any provisions of

Section 98.00 of the Municipal Code as set forth therein.” (The Business and Professions Code makes elaborate provision for investigation of the acts of contractors, accusations against them, causes for disciplinary action, hearings, review, discipline, prosecution for violations of any law, and renewal or reissuance of suspended or revoked license [§§155, 7090-7122], and vests broad powers in the board relative to the licensing and regulation of contractors [§§7000-7145].) It clearly appears from the foregoing that the state has occupied the field of licensing electrical contractors and that therefore the ordinances here under attack are invalid to the extent that they conflict with the Business and Professions Code. (Agnew v.

City of Culver City, 147 Cal.App. 2d 144 [304 P.2d 788]; Lynch v. City of Los Angeles, 114 Cal. App.2d 115 [249 P.2d 856]; City & County of San Francisco v. Boss, 83 Cal.App.2d 445 [189 P.2d 32].) The only material difference between the ordinance held invalid in Agnew v. City of Culver City, supra, and the ordinance here involved is that the former imposed a fee of $100, while in the instant case the fee varies according to the amount of the contractor’s gross receipts, the minimum being $12. In City & County of San Francisco v.

Boss, supra, the fee was only $10, but the court, in holding the ordinance invalid, pointed out, at page 446, that the ordinance said: “Any certificate of registration may be revoked for any act of the person so registered showing said person to be dishonest or guilty of the violation of any rule or regulation, either state or municipal, regulating or governing contractors.” (Italics added.) In such case, the court held that the state law had preempted the field.

The only differences between the language just quoted and the corresponding language in the ordinance under attack are, in effect, the foregoing italicized words. The foregoing cases are directly in point and lead to the inescapable conclusion that the state has preempted the field here involved and that defendant city’s ordinances are therefore invalid. Of course, as contended by defendants, a municipality may tax electrical contractors, as other trades, professions and businesses are taxed.

The fees in the present case, however, are exacted not as a business tax but as the price of a license that the city cannot require. The judgment is reversed. The purported appeals from the order denying motions for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction are dismissed. Plaintiff is to recover his costs on appeal. Gibson, C. J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., and Sehauer, J., concurred.