ejusdem generis doctrine in California

2008Under the principle of ejusdem generis (literally, “of the same kind”) (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1160 & fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ]; Engelmann v. State Bd. of Education (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 47, 56, fn. 11 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 264 ]), where specific words follow general words in a contract, “the general words are construed to embrace only things similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words.” (California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 ]; see also Int

2008Under the principle of ejusdem generis (literally, “of the same kind”) (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1160 & fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ]; Engelmann v. State Bd. of Education (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 47, 56, fn. 11 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 264 ]), where specific words follow general words in a contract, “the general words are construed to embrace only things similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words.” (California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 ]; see also Int

2019(Cf. In re Joseph B. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 952, 957 .) “In construing a statute a court’s objective is to ascertain and effectuate the underlying legislative intent. [Citation.] This fundamental rule overrides the ejusdem generis doctrine, just as it would any maxim of jurisprudence, if application of the doctrine or maxim would frustrate the intent underlying the statute.” (Moore v. California State Bd. of Accountancy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 999, 1012 .) “[E]jusdem generis is only an aid in getting the meaning and does not warrant confining the operations of a statute within narrower limits than were int

2015Second, under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “ ‘ “[w]here general words follow the enumeration of particular kinds or classes of persons or things, the general words will, unless a contrary intent is manifested, be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class as those specifically enumerated.” ’ (Nygard, Inc. v. Uusi–Kerttula (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1045 , fn. 4 . . . [applying ejusdem generis to interpretation of contract].)” (Huverserian v. Catalina Scuba Luv, Inc. (2010) 15 184 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1468-1469 ; see Moore v. California State Bd. of

2008The rule is "based on the obvious reason that if the Legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would not have mentioned the particular things or classes of things which would in that event become mere surplusage." ( Scally, supra, at p. 819 ; see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ].) *181 (8) "In construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency. [Citations.]" ( People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 [ 156 P.2d 7 ].) For exa

2008The rule is "based on the obvious reason that if the Legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would not have mentioned the particular things or classes of things which would in that event become mere surplusage." ( Scally, supra, at p. 819 ; see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ].) *181 (8) "In construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency. [Citations.]" ( People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 [ 156 P.2d 7 ].) For exa

2021“The doctrine of ejusdem generis is simply a rule of statutory construction that will not be applied to defeat legislative intent. . . . [Citations.] Indeed, ‘to the extent the doctrine results in a strict construction of the statute, it has been abolished in California.’ [Citation.]” (Eller Media Co. v. Community Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 38 .) “[T]his principle is not applied if the result would be contrary to legislative intent or when no manifest reason appears for excluding one matter and including another… [Citation.]” (International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th at

2008(See International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 342 [64 *797 Cal.Rptr.3d 693, 165 P.3d 488 ] [The doctrine of ejusdem generis applies to Pen.

1966It was contended by defendant in the trial court, and upon the appeal, that the doctrine of ejusdem generis should be applied in defining the words “and elsewhere throughout the State” and that by applying this rule the quoted words mean “highways, alleys, streets, freeways, tunnels, bridges, etc.,” and do not mean “a privately owned and maintained parking lot. ’ ’ It must be remembered that the doctrine of ejusdem, generis “is only a rule of construction, to be applied as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent, and that it does not control where it clearly appears from the statute as a

1966It was contended by defendant in the trial court, and upon the appeal, that the doctrine of ejusdem generis should be applied in defining the words “and elsewhere throughout the State” and that by applying this rule the quoted words mean “highways, alleys, streets, freeways, tunnels, bridges, etc.,” and do not mean “a privately owned and maintained parking lot. ’ ’ It must be remembered that the doctrine of ejusdem, generis “is only a rule of construction, to be applied as an aid in ascertaining the legislative intent, and that it does not control where it clearly appears from the statute as a

2019Defendant asserts that our high court’s declaration that the maxim of ejusdem generis is to be applied with stringency “means that the rule is strictly applied in criminal cases.” According to defendant, to “the extent Fields suggests otherwise, it conflicts with California Supreme Court authority and cannot be followed.” Our high court has indeed stated that, “ ‘[i]n construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency.’ ” (Arias, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 181 , quoting People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 .) But this does not mean we are to ign

2008The rule is "based on the obvious reason that if the Legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would not have mentioned the particular things or classes of things which would in that event become mere surplusage." ( Scally, supra, at p. 819 ; see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ].) *181 (8) "In construing criminal statutes the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency. [Citations.]" ( People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 [ 156 P.2d 7 ].) For exa

2021(Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1277 ; Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1619 (Zumbrun).) In any event, even if we were to assume that the arbitration agreement is ambiguous, we are not convinced that the ejusdem generis doctrine applies here to support defendant’s position. 3 Defendant alternatively argues that, to the extent the arbitration agreement is ambiguous, plaintiff’s UCL claim is arbitrable because of the strong public policy favoring arbitration.

2012(The Zumbrun Law Firm v. California Legislature (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1603, 1619 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 525 ].) Moreover, use of the ejusdem generis doctrine is inappropriate where to do so “would frustrate the intent underlying the statute.” (Moore v. California State Bd. of Accountancy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 999, 1012 [ 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 358 , 831 P.2d 798 ]; see Huverserian v. Catalina Scuba Luv, Inc., supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1468-1469 [“In a contract, ‘ “[w]here general words follow the enumeration of particular kinds or classes of persons or things, the general words will, unless a contrary intent

2007In either event, the general term or category is `restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.'" ( Hams v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1160, fn. 7 , 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 , quoting Martin v. Holiday Inns, Inc. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1437 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 717 .) Although "the phrase `including, but not limited to' is a phrase of enlargement," the use of this phrase does not conclusively demonstrate that the Legislature intended a category to be without limits. ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (19

2007In either event, the general term or category is `restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.'" ( Hams v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1160, fn. 7 , 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 , quoting Martin v. Holiday Inns, Inc. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1437 , 245 Cal.Rptr. 717 .) Although "the phrase `including, but not limited to' is a phrase of enlargement," the use of this phrase does not conclusively demonstrate that the Legislature intended a category to be without limits. ( Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (19

2001(Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ].) Under this rule, application of the general term is “ ‘restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.’ ” (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1160, fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ], quoting Martin v. Holiday Inns, Inc. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1437 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 717 ]; see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 141 .) Moreover, “[i]n construing criminal statutes, the eju

2001(Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 116, 141 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 485 , 999 P.2d 718 ].) Under this rule, application of the general term is “ ‘restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.’ ” (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142, 1160, fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ], quoting Martin v. Holiday Inns, Inc. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1434, 1437 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 717 ]; see also Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 141 .) Moreover, “[i]n construing criminal statutes, the eju

1995(Peralta Community College Dist. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 50 .) Peralta observed “[u]nlike hiring, reinstatement, or upgrading, with or without backpay, and the other specified remedies, payment of compensatory damages arguably is not, in the common usage of the term, an action to be taken by the employer, nor, in any event, is payment of damages the kind of specific and limited action directed to elimination of discrimination and its effects in the workplace as the [FEHC] is otherwise empowered to require the employer to take.” (Ibid.) Peralta also applied the

1995The rule is based on the obvious reason that if the Legislature had intended the general words to be used in their unrestricted sense, it would not have mentioned the particular things or classes of things which would in that event become mere surplusage. [Citations.]” ’ ” (Peralta Community College Dist. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 50.) Peralta concluded “[i]n light of the foregoing, we are reluctant to infer that through the expansive language of [Government Code] section 12970 the Legislature intended by implication to grant the [FEHC] the authority ... to awar

1991However, in view of our prior decisions and the Legislature's sometimes equivocal reactions to them, we will also consider other relevant factors in construing the Unruh Act as it applies in this case. (9) Among the maxims of jurisprudence in the Civil Code is the following: "Particular expressions qualify those which are general." (§ 3534 [enacted 1872].) The principle is an expression of the doctrine of ejusdem generis (or Lord Tenterden's rule), which seeks to ascertain common characteristics among things of the same kind, class, or nature when they are cataloged in legislative enactments.

1991However, in view of our prior decisions and the Legislature's sometimes equivocal reactions to them, we will also consider other relevant factors in construing the Unruh Act as it applies in this case. (9) Among the maxims of jurisprudence in the Civil Code is the following: "Particular expressions qualify those which are general." (§ 3534 [enacted 1872].) The principle is an expression of the doctrine of ejusdem generis (or Lord Tenterden's rule), which seeks to ascertain common characteristics among things of the same kind, class, or nature when they are cataloged in legislative enactments.

2007(People v. Silver (1940) 16 Cal.2d 714, 721 [ 108 P.2d 4 ].) In Gordon , the court seems to have applied the ejusdem generis rule without identifying any ambiguity in section 466.

2007(People v. Silver (1940) 16 Cal.2d 714, 721 [ 108 P.2d 4 ].) In Gordon , the court seems to have applied the ejusdem generis rule without identifying any ambiguity in section 466.

2015“Contrivance” is commonly defined as a “mechanical device” or “an artificial arrangement or development.” (Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (10th ed. 1999) p. 252; see Baugh v. Beatty (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 786, 791 [ 205 P.2d 671 ] [using Webster’s definition of “contrivance”].) For purposes of statutory interpretation, the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies.

2015“Contrivance” is commonly defined as a “mechanical device” or “an artificial arrangement or development.” (Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (10th ed. 1999) p. 252; see Baugh v. Beatty (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 786, 791 [ 205 P.2d 671 ] [using Webster’s definition of “contrivance”].) For purposes of statutory interpretation, the doctrine of ejusdem generis applies.

2008Under the principle of ejusdem generis (literally, “of the same kind”) (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1160 & fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ]; Engelmann v. State Bd. of Education (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 47, 56, fn. 11 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 264 ]), where specific words follow general words in a contract, “the general words are construed to embrace only things similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words.” (California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 ]; see also Int

2008Under the principle of ejusdem generis (literally, “of the same kind”) (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142 , 1160 & fn. 7 [ 278 Cal.Rptr. 614 , 805 P.2d 873 ]; Engelmann v. State Bd. of Education (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 47, 56, fn. 11 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 264 ]), where specific words follow general words in a contract, “the general words are construed to embrace only things similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words.” (California Farm Bureau Federation v. California Wildlife Conservation Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 173, 189 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 169 ]; see also Int

2008When it *1620 can be seen that the particular word by which the general word is followed was inserted, not to give a coloring to the general word, but for a distinct object, and when, to carry out the purpose of the statute, the general word ought to govern, it is a mistake to allow the ejusdem generis rule to pervert the construction.’ ” (Hunt v. Manning (1914) 24 Cal.App. 44, 48 [ 140 P. 39 ].) In this case the exception to the rule of disclosure set forth in article IV, section 7 of the Constitution is a distinct object from legislative statutes and rules.

2008When it *1620 can be seen that the particular word by which the general word is followed was inserted, not to give a coloring to the general word, but for a distinct object, and when, to carry out the purpose of the statute, the general word ought to govern, it is a mistake to allow the ejusdem generis rule to pervert the construction.’ ” (Hunt v. Manning (1914) 24 Cal.App. 44, 48 [ 140 P. 39 ].) In this case the exception to the rule of disclosure set forth in article IV, section 7 of the Constitution is a distinct object from legislative statutes and rules.

1984(See Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244 , 251 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 636 P.2d 582 ].) The doctrine of ejusdem generis is a rule of construction used to carry out legislative intent, not defeat it. ( County of Placer v. Corin (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 443 , 448, fn. 2 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 232 ].) "Section 1942.5 is a remedial statute aimed at protecting tenants from certain types of abuses.

1984(See Barela v. Superior Court (1981) 30 Cal.3d 244 , 251 [ 178 Cal.Rptr. 618 , 636 P.2d 582 ].) The doctrine of ejusdem generis is a rule of construction used to carry out legislative intent, not defeat it. ( County of Placer v. Corin (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 443 , 448, fn. 2 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 232 ].) "Section 1942.5 is a remedial statute aimed at protecting tenants from certain types of abuses.

1964(Matter of La Societe Francaise (1899) 123 Cal. 525, 531 [ 56 P. 458, 787 ]; People v. McKean (1925) 76 Cal.App. 114, 121 [ 243 P. 898 ].) Hence, the more general words ‘or any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, ’ following the specifically enumerated instances of killing which are expressly declared to constitute murder of the first degree, must be construed in the light of such specifically listed types and be held to include only killings of the same general kind or character as those specifically mentioned.

1964(Matter of La Societe Francaise (1899) 123 Cal. 525, 531 [ 56 P. 458, 787 ]; People v. McKean (1925) 76 Cal.App. 114, 121 [ 243 P. 898 ].) Hence, the more general words ‘or any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, ’ following the specifically enumerated instances of killing which are expressly declared to constitute murder of the first degree, must be construed in the light of such specifically listed types and be held to include only killings of the same general kind or character as those specifically mentioned.

2017In law, this is the doctrine of ejusdem generis. " As we have discussed, applying a legal doctrine like this seems to be contrary to the rule that the publication in question " 'is to be measured not so much by its effect when subjected to the critical analysis of a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader.' [Citation.]" ( MacLeod, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 551 , 343 P.2d 36 .) In any event, the Latin phrase ejusdem generis (meaning of the same kind or of the same class) stands for the proposition that " ' "where general words follow the

2017In law, this is the doctrine of ejusdem generis. " As we have discussed, applying a legal doctrine like this seems to be contrary to the rule that the publication in question " 'is to be measured not so much by its effect when subjected to the critical analysis of a mind trained in the law, but by the natural and probable effect upon the mind of the average reader.' [Citation.]" ( MacLeod, supra, 52 Cal.2d at p. 551 , 343 P.2d 36 .) In any event, the Latin phrase ejusdem generis (meaning of the same kind or of the same class) stands for the proposition that " ' "where general words follow the

2012The court relied on the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “which applies when general terms follow a list of specific items or categories, or vice versa. [Citation.] Under this rule, application of the general term is ‘ “restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.'” ’ [Citations.]” (Gordon, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 1412 , italics added.) Observing the “items specifically listed as burglar’s tools in section 466 are keys or key replacements, or tools that can be used to pry open doors, pick locks, or pull locks up or out,” and noting that ejusdem generi

2006(People v. Gordon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1412 [ 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 725 ].) And “ ‘[i]n construing criminal statutes, the ejusdem generis rule of construction is applied with stringency.’ ” (Ibid., quoting People v. Thomas (1945) 25 Cal.2d 880, 899 [ 156 P.2d 7 ].) Here, as McDonald correctly notes, the enumerated items all share the characteristic of portability, a characteristic that cannot be ascribed to urine.

2006In Lawrence , the retainer agreement's arbitration provision was part of "an agreement devoted almost exclusively to financial matters." ( Id. at p. 1506, 256 Cal.Rptr. 6 .) The defendant law firm had drafted the agreement and sought to compel arbitration of its client's malpractice claim, based solely on general language in a phrase that was embedded in a discussion of fee-related matters: "`In the event of a dispute between us regarding fees, costs or any other aspect of our attorney-client relationship, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration.'" ( Ibid., italics added.) The app

2006In Lawrence , the retainer agreement's arbitration provision was part of "an agreement devoted almost exclusively to financial matters." ( Id. at p. 1506, 256 Cal.Rptr. 6 .) The defendant law firm had drafted the agreement and sought to compel arbitration of its client's malpractice claim, based solely on general language in a phrase that was embedded in a discussion of fee-related matters: "`In the event of a dispute between us regarding fees, costs or any other aspect of our attorney-client relationship, the dispute shall be resolved by binding arbitration.'" ( Ibid., italics added.) The app

2024“Established canons of statutory construction assist us in ascertaining the meaning of a term primarily defined by way of a list of examples and the meaning of examples enumerated on such a list.” (Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 939 , 952.) Under the doctrine of ejusdem generis, “ ‘[w]hen a statute contains a list or catalogue of items,’ ” we “ ‘determine the meaning of each by reference to the others, giving preference to an interpretation that uniformly treats items similar in nature and scope.’ ” (Friends of Oceano Dunes, Inc. v. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution

2021For the reasons we explain post, we reject this contention. 9 “Ejusdem generis is a subset of noscitur a sociis, which means the meaning of a word may be known from the accompanying words.” (Zumbrun, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 1619 .) “ ‘Ejusdem generis . . . means that where general words follow specific words, or specific words follow general words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to embrace only things similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words.’ ” (Gateway Community Charters v. Spiess (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 499, 504 [“ejusdem generis (‘literally,