-5-
Shamrock Foods, Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 432.) Under a de novo standard of review, the
Court is not bound by the trial court’s statutory interpretation. (Id.)
When determining the meaning of a statute, the court must first look to the words
“because they generally provide the most reliable indicator of legislative intent. (citation
omitted) . . . If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it
said, and the plain meaning of the statue governs.” (Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions (2007)
40 Cal.4th 1094, 1103.) “In reading statutes, we are mindful that words are to be given their
plain and commonsense meaning.” (Ibid.) “Only when the statute’s language is ambiguous or
susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation may the court turn to extrinsic aids to
assist in interpretation.” (Ibid.)
B. Failure to provide a legally sufficient notice is a complete defense to an
unlawful detainer.
“Unlawful detainer is a unique body of law and its procedures are entirely separate from
the procedures pertaining to civil actions generally.” (Losornio v. Motta (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th
110, 115.) “Sections 1159 through 1179a comprise what is commonly known as the Unlawful
Detainer Act; the statutes are broad in scope and available to both lessors and lessees who have
suffered certain wrongs committed by the other.” (Losornio v. Motta, supra, at p. 113.) Strict
compliance with the statutory notice requirements is a prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer
action. (Lamey v. Masciotra (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d. 709, 713.) “Under California statutory law
a tenant is entitled to a 3-day notice to pay rent or quit which may be enforced by summary legal
proceedings (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161) but this notice is valid and enforceable only if the lessor
strictly complies with the specifically described notice conditions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1162.)”
(Ibid.)
A copy of the notice of eviction must be attached to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §
1166, subd. (d)(1)(A).) A complaint, that does not comply with the notice requirements, fails to
state a cause of action for unlawful detainer and the court lacks both personal and subject matter
jurisdiction. (Kwok v. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 599-600.)