The Supreme Court ruled on 145 matters at yesterday’s conference, but none of those rulings was a straight grant. Here are some highlights.
Another forum selection grant-and-hold
Hardy v. Forest River, Inc. is another grant-and-hold for EpicentRx, Inc. v. Superior Court (see here), which will be argued next week and is expected to decide whether a forum selection clause is enforceable when a party’s right under California state law to a jury trial for their civil claims would not apply in the exclusive forum identified by the clause. The Second District, Division Two, Court of Appeal’s belatedly published opinion in Hardy ordered a Lemon Law action to remain in California instead of moving it to Indiana as a forum selection clause in the parties’ contract provided. This despite a defense offer to stipulate that California’s Lemon Law would apply in the Indiana court and the superior court’s order that a stay of the California lawsuit could be lifted if the Indiana court declined to apply California law.
Racial Justice Act dissenting vote
The court denied review in People v. Brown, but Justice Goodwin Liu recorded a vote to grant. The Sixth District summarily denied a motion to stay the appeal and to remand the case to the superior court under the California Racial Justice Act (here and here).
Gun limitation denial
The court denied review in People v. Richardson, in which the Second District, Division Eight, published opinion held “convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition are constitutional because only law-abiding citizens are among the class of people covered by the text of the Second Amendment.”
Unconstitutional water rates denial
The court also denied review and a depublication request in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Coachella Valley Water District. The Fourth District, Division Two, published opinion concluded a water district’s rates were taxes and were thus invalid under California constitutional provisions because the district “did not follow the required procedures when enacting them.”
Criminal case grant-and-holds
There were eight criminal case grant-and-holds: six more waiting for a decision in People v. Rhodius (see here), which was argued last month; one holding for People v. Esquivias (see here); and one more holding for People v. Lopez (see here).
28 grant-and-hold dispositions (see here)
Cases holding for the August prejudicial-sentencing-error decision in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (see here): the court dismissed review in five, sent two back to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of the Lynch opinion, and remanded two to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of both Lynch and the November 2023 resentencing decision in People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (see here).
Cases holding for Lynch and Salazar: the court returned three cases to the Courts of Appeal for reconsideration in light of both the Lynch and Salazar opinions.
Case holding for Lynch and the May 2023 jury-trial-right decision in People v. Catarino (2023) 14 Cal.5th 748 (see here and here): the court sent one case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Lynch.
Case holding for Lynch, Salazar, and Catarino: the court remanded one case for reconsideration in light of the Lynch and Salazar opinions.
Case holding for Lynch, Salazar, and the June 2023 murder-resentencing decision in People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981: the court sent one case back for reconsideration in light of the Lynch, Salazar, and Reyes opinions.
Cases holding for the January gang-enhancement decision in People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388 (see here): the court dismissed review in 11 cases and returned one case for reconsideration in light of the Lopez opinion.
Case holding for Lopez and the July 2024 enhancement-on-resentencing opinion in People v. Arellano (2024) 16 Cal.5th 457 (see here): the court sent one case back for reconsideration in light of the Arellano opinion.
