The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, July 20, 2016. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Supplemental Briefing Ordered
Parker v. State of California, S215265 – Supplemental Briefing Ordered—July 20, 2016
This case presents the following question: Are the Penal Code sections that regulate “ammunition principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some rifles” (Pen. Code, § 16650, subd. (a)) unconstitutional on their face for failure to afford adequate notice of the regulated conduct and/or failure to provide sufficient guidelines to prevent arbitrary enforcement?
The Fifth District Court of Appeal held in a published decision, Parker v. State of California, 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 345, that: (1) the court would apply more lenient heightened scrutiny; and (2) statutes regulating the sale, display, and transfer of “handgun ammunition” were unconstitutionally vague.
The parties are now directed to submit supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the passage of Senate Bill No. 1235 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) has rendered plaintiff’s claims moot.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1 LLC, S235039 –Review Denied [Werdegar, J., voting for review] and Opinion Depublished—July 20, 2016
This case presents the following question: In a dispute between the public and property owners over the use of a road, parking area and the inland dry sand of a popular beach, does a provision in the California Constitution or the common law of dedication confer upon the public a right of access over private property?
The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Two, held in a (now depublished) decision, Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1 LLC (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1312, that: (1) neither the United States nor California held any public interest in oceanfront land, under the public trust doctrine, to access the ocean from the beach; (2) the facts alleged in the complaint were sufficient to establish a common law dedication of oceanfront property for beach access; (3) the trial court’s judgment quieting title to the property, including “off-shore submerged tidelands,” in landowners improperly exceeded the scope of the cross-complaint; and (4) the state was not an indispensable party.
The Supreme Court denied review but ordered the Court of Appeal’s opinion depublished. Justice Werdegar voted to grant review.
Friends of Martin’s Beach v. Martin’s Beach 1 LLC, S235039 –Depublished Court of Appeal Opinion—July 20, 2016
See discussion above.