With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims and sought certification of a plaintiff class. Simic’s main theory is that the ordinance somehow violates the United States Constitution because it exceeds the powers the State of Illinois has granted to the City of Chicago. Illinois prevents municipalities from creating ordinances regarding certain traffic offenses, such as those offenses in the Illinois Vehicle Code. See 65 ILCS 5/1-2.1-2. The Illinois Vehicle Code contains a prohibition on cell phone use while driving. 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2 (prohibiting a person from operating “a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device”). Simic argues that Chicago’s cell phone ordinance is preempted by the Illinois statute. See Catom Trucking, Inc. v. Chicago, 351 Ill.Dec. 797, 952 N.E.2d 170, 175-76 (2011) (<HOLDING>). The Illinois statute on cell phone use while

A: holding city could not enforce through administrative adjudication a city ordinance limiting vehicle weight
B: holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
C: holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
D: holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract
A.