What is the "plain meaning" rule in the interpretation of statutory language?

When interpreting statutory language, [w]e begin with the fundamental rule that our primary task is to determine the lawmakers' intent. (Delaney v. Superior Court(1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 798, 268 Cal.Rptr. 753, 789 P.2d 934.) Under the plain meaning rule, [t]he court looks first to the language of the statute; if clear and unambiguous, the court will give effect to its plain meaning. (Young v. Gannon(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 209, 223, 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 187.) But the plain meaning rule does not prohibit a court from determining whether the literal meaning of a statute comports with its purpose or whether such a construction of one provision is consistent with other provisions of the statute. The meaning of a statute may not be determined from a single word or sentence; the words must be construed in

[241 Cal.App.4th 1113]

context, and provisions relating to the same subject matter must be harmonized to the extent possible. [Citation.] Literal construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute. The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act. [Citations.] An interpretation that renders related provisions nugatory must be avoided [citation]; each sentence must be read not in isolation but in the light of the statutory scheme [citation]; and if a statute is amenable to two alternative interpretations, the one that leads to the more reasonable result will be followed [citation]. (Lungren v. Deukmejian(1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735, 248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299.)