11
B. Principles of Statutory Interpretation
When interpreting a statute, “our core task . . . is to
determine and give effect to the Legislature’s underlying purpose
in enacting the statutes at issue.” (McHugh v. Protective Life Ins.
Co. (2021) 12 Cal.5th 213, 227 (McHugh); accord Jarman v. HCR
ManorCare, Inc. (2020) 10 Cal.5th 375, 381 (Jarman).) “We first
consider the words of the statutes, as statutory language is
generally the most reliable indicator of legislation’s intended
purpose. [Citation.] We consider the ordinary meaning of the
relevant terms, related provisions, terms used in other parts of
the statute, and the structure of the statutory scheme.”
(McHugh, at p. 227; accord, Jarman, at p. 381 [“‘We do not
examine that language in isolation, but in the context of the
statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope
and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the
enactment.’”].) “It is a basic canon of statutory construction that
statutes in pari materia should be construed together so that all
parts of the statutory scheme are given effect.” (Lexin v. Superior
Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1050, 1090-1091; accord, Law Finance
Group, LLC v. Key (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 307, 317.)
“We have long recognized the principle that even though a
statute may appear to be unambiguous on its face, when it is
considered in light of closely related statutes a legislative purpose
may emerge that is inconsistent with, and controlling over, the
language read without reference to the entire scheme of the law.”
(Droeger v. Friedman, Sloan & Ross (1991) 54 Cal.3d 26, 50.) “‘If
two seemingly inconsistent statutes conflict, the court’s role is to
harmonize the law. [Citations.] We presume that the
Legislature, when enacting a statute, was aware of existing
related laws and intended to maintain a consistent body of