at 1168 (quoting Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc. v. Western Conf. of Teamsters, 686 F.2d 720, 722 (9th Cir. 1982)). The City stresses that it is not trying “to have its cake and eat it-too” because it has scrupulously abided by the terms of injunctions issued here and in state court, and because it urged the Ninth Circuit to reach the merits on appeal. Mot. at 13; see also Dilley, 64 F.3d at 1372 n.6 (noting that it may weigh equitably in favor of vacatur if the party seeking it did not seek to avoid appellate review). The City also observes that both the original and amended ordinance “are now. a dead letter on independent state law.grounds,” making this Court’s constitutional holding unnecessary. Id. at 13-14; see also Coyne et al. v. City and County of San Francisco (dkt. 133-11) at 1 (<HOLDING>); Black Police Ass’n, 108 F.3d at 354 (noting
holding that californias ellis act preempts both ordinances holding that fehba completely preempts holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act holding that the faa preempts californias broughtoncruz rule which prohibited mandatory arbitration of three particular types of claims if the plaintiff sought a public injunction holding that the flsa preempts certain state law claims