9
The Board has demonstrated it is adept at specifying remedies for violation of the
Ordinance, and it simply declined to do so with respect to the notice requirement set out in
section 8.52.090, subdivision (B)(4). It is settled that legislators’ omission of language, while
using it with other laws enacted as part of the same legislation, suggests such omission was
intentional. (Seviour-Iloff v. LaPaille (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 427, 442, fn. 6.) It is a cardinal
rule of statutory construction that courts cannot read into a law a provision that does not exist
and is not shown to be the intent of the lawmakers. (Midwest Motor Supply Co. v. Superior
Court (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 702, 710.)
Our interpretation does not frustrate the Board’s intent to prevent excessive rent
increases and to provide a mechanism for the Department to monitor and regulate such
increases (§ 8.52.020), as this case involves a lease agreement created in June 2021, with no
increase in rent before defendants allegedly refused to tender payment for April 2022.
Moreover, defendants are not without a remedy as envisioned by the current version of the
Ordinance. (§§ 8.52.160, 8.52.170; see L.A. County Ord. No. 2021-0040.) Plaintiffs are
entitled to a trial on their claim of right to possession; accordingly, the court appropriately
denied summary judgment to defendants.
DISPOSITION
The petition for writ of mandate is denied, the alternative writ of mandate is discharged,
and the stay is lifted. Plaintiffs shall recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.936(a).)