EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)

Citation: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Parent Document: EDC Associates, Ltd. v. Gutierrez, 153 Cal. App. 3d 167 (1984)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1984-03-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2116822/edc-associates-ltd-v-gutierrez/ ↗

Full Text

1,845 chars

It is not clear precisely how landlord would apply the above described maxim of interpretation to section 1942.5, since the relevant subdivisions, (a) and (c), are not in the form of enumerated items followed by general terms, except insofar as subdivision (c) lists acts prohibited the lessor if his purpose is unlawful [". . . increase rent, decrease services, cause a lessee to quit involuntarily, bring an action to recover possession, or threaten to *Page 173 
do any of such acts . . ."]. Rather than limit the operation of a general term by reference to specific terms associated with it, landlord would have this court import a phrase [". . . if the lessee . . . is not in default as to payment of his rent . . ."] from one subdivision [(a)] to another subdivision dealing with different rights where the phrase does not appear [(c)]. "Where the Legislature omits a particular provision in a later enactment related to the same subject matter, such deliberate omission indicates a different intention which may not be supplanted in the process of judicial construction. [Citation.]" (Kaiser SteelCorp. v. County of Solano (1979) 90 Cal.App.3d 662, 667 [153 Cal.Rptr. 546].) "The sweep of [a] statute should not be enlarged by insertion of language which the Legislature has overtly left out. [Citation.]" (People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 977 [108 Cal.Rptr. 620].) While Kaiser Steel Corp., supra,
dealt with two separate statutes, and Brannon, supra, involved language omitted by the Legislature during the process of enactment, the principle expressed in those cases appears equally applicable to section 1942.5, especially since subdivision (c) was added when the statute was reenacted (after repeal of a previous version) in 1979. (See Barela v. Superior Court
(1981) 30 Cal.3d 244, 251 [178 Cal.Rptr. 618, 636 P.2d 582].)

Other Sections in This Document (170)

Full Text