3
Defendants challenge the order denying summary judgment in this timely petition for
writ of mandate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (m)(1); West Shield Investigations & Security
Consultants v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 935, 946.)2
DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that plaintiffs did not submit the notice to the Department within the
deadline imposed by section 8.52.090, subdivision (B)(4). What is disputed is the consequence
of this noncompliance. This is an issue of first impression.
Defendants contend the notice requirement was a prerequisite to plaintiffs’
commencement of the unlawful detainer action or, alternatively, it was an affirmative defense
thereto. It is plaintiffs’ position the Ordinance does not prohibit the termination of a tenancy
based upon a landlord’s failure to timely submit a copy of the notice to the Department. Based
on the plain language of the Ordinance in addition to the relevant legislative history, we find
defendants were not entitled to summary judgment.
Summary judgment may be granted only if there is no question of material fact and the
issues raised in the papers may be decided as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd.
(c); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) A defendant seeking
summary judgment bears the burden of establishing there is a complete defense to the cause of
action. (Id. at p. 849.) A writ of mandate will issue where the court’s denial of a motion for
summary judgment will result in a trial on non-actionable claims. (West Shield Investigations
& Security Consultants v. Superior Court, supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 946.) An order denying
summary judgment involving only questions of law is subject to de novo review. (Ibid.)
Interpretation of a municipal ordinance is reviewed under the same standards applicable
to statutory construction. (Chun v. Del Cid (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 806, 815.) “‘Our
fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to