What is the test for determining the meaning of a section of the California Statutory Code of Civil Procedure?

ordinary meaning, and [i]f there is no ambiguity, then we presume the lawmakers meant what they said, and the plain meaning of the language governs. ... If, however, the statutory language is ambiguous, we may resort to extrinsic sources, including the ostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history. ... Ultimately we choose the construction that comports most closely with the apparent intent of the lawmakers, with a view to promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute. (Mays v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 313, 321, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 891, 180 P.3d 935, citations omitted.)