Thorin Properties v. City of Eugene

“In order to have standing, to seek a declaration with respect to an ordinance, a plaintiff must show that it had a legally recognized interest that is adversely affected by that ordinance.” MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544 (2016). A state law can preempt a municipal law by implication if the two “cannot operate concurrently.” Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 275 Ore. App. 874 (2015)

Defendant, City of Eugene, appealed a judgment that prohibited it from enforcing Eugene Code 8.425(14), which imposes a $10 cap on screening fees charged by landlords to applicants. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the declaratory action and in ruling that ORS 90.295(2) preempted the ordinance. “In order to have standing, to seek a declaration with respect to an ordinance, a plaintiff must show that it had a legally recognized interest that is adversely affected by that ordinance.” MT & M Gaming, Inc. v. City of Portland, 360 Or 544 (2016). A state law can preempt a municipal law by implication if the two “cannot operate concurrently.” Qwest Corp. v. City of Portland, 275 Ore. App. 874 (2015). The Court found that the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiffs had standing because the financial impact, whether from a direct collection or through a third party, constituted a protected interest. However, The Court found that the trial court erred in determining that the Eugene ordinance was preempted by ORS 90.295(2) because compliance with both the city ordinance and state law was not impossible. The Court held that the plaintiffs had standing but held that the trial court erred in concluding that the ordinance was preempted. Reversed and remanded.