APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Van Nuys Trial Court, Gregory Keosian, Judge. (Van Nuys Trial Court No. 09E13112)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. Mckay, P.J.
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
This appeal from a trial de novo of an administrative hearing raises the issues of preemption and due process of law. We affirm the judgment.
Defendant and appellant Leslie Keith Kaufman received an administrative citation via mail alleging that a vehicle registered to him was captured by automated video equipment failing to obey a stop sign located on property within the jurisdiction of plaintiff and respondent Mountains Recreation Conservation Authority (MRCA). The cause proceeded to an administrative hearing. At the conclusion thereof, the hearing officer found that appellant had violated sections 4.0 and 4.2.1*fn1 of MRCA Ordinance No. 1-2003, as amended. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and a trial de novo was held.
At the trial de novo, Ranger Fernando Gomez testified that he Areviewed a video of a vehicle that failed to stop at a stop sign and authorized the issuance of an administrative citation to the registered owner of the vehicle based on his observation of the vehicle=s failure to stop. [Gomez] showed the video to the court. [Gomez] stated that he made no effort to identify the driver of the vehicle.@
Thereafter, appellant testified and denied that he was Athe driver of the vehicle cited for the moving violation, and testified that there were no photographs taken, or produced, which show any driver, let alone the [d]efendant, in the vehicle at the time the alleged moving violation was alleged to have taken place.@ (Sic.)
At the conclusion of the trial de novo, the trial court took the matter under submission. Later, the trial court affirmed the administrative decision*fn2 and judgment to that effect was subsequently entered. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant seeks to have this court reverse the judgment on the following grounds: (1) that sections 4.0 and 4.2.1(a) of MRCA Ordinance No. 1-2003, as amended, are preempted by Vehicle Code section 21; (2) that the court erred by finding that the Vehicle Code does not preempt MRCA=s ordinances Aregarding the regulation and contract of the non highway pathways in the boundaries of the MRCA@; and (3) that appellant=s right to due process of law was violated.
Any statute, local ordinance or regulation that conflicts with state law is invalid and preempted. (Cal. Const., art. XI, ' 7; O=Connell v. City of Stockton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1061, 1067; Foley v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 206, 209-210; Roble Vista Associates v. Bacon (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 335, 339.) A conflict exists between state and local law when the local legislation either A>. . . A>duplicates, contradicts, or enters an area fully occupied by general law, either ...