Elmassian v. Flores (2021)

Citation: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Parent Document: Elmassian v. Flores (2021)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2021-09-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5094726/elmassian-v-flores/ ↗

Full Text

1,365 chars

“If the statutory language is not clear, a court may resort to extrinsic sources, like
legislative history.” (926 North Ardmore Avenue, LLC v. County of Los Angeles (2017) 3
Cal.5th 319, 328.) But “‘“‘[i]f the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for
construction, nor is it necessary to resort to [extrinsic] indicia of the intent of the
Legislature . . . .’”’” (City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5th 409, 419; see also
Department of Fish & Game v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation Dist. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th
1554, 1562 [other indicia of intent, such as legislative history, may be consulted when a statute
is susceptible of more than one interpretation, but not “[w]hen the language is clear and
unambiguous”]; accord, Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 19
Cal.4th 1036, 1047 [“‘If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature
meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs’”].)
       Section 1161.3, provides in relevant part, as follows.
       (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a landlord shall not terminate
       a tenancy or fail to renew a tenancy based upon an act or acts against a tenant or
       a tenant’s household member that constitute domestic violence as defined in
       Section 6211 of the Family Code,[11] sexual assault as defined in Section 1219,

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text