There were no straight grants — and only a few notable actions — at yesterday’s Supreme Court conference.

Gun violence research. The court denied review of the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal unpublished opinion in Barba v. Bonta. Division One rejected a constitutional challenge to legislation requiring the California Department of Justice to provide the University of California’s Firearm Violence Research Center with data that includes personal identifying records of handgun and long gun transfers and of ammunition sales and transfers. As stated in the opinion, the Legislature directed the Center be established “with the goals of overseeing interdisciplinary research addressing the nature and consequences of firearm violence, and working with policymakers ‘to identify, implement, and evaluate innovative firearm violence prevention policies and programs.’ (Pen. Code §§ 14230, 14231.)” The appellate court reversed a preliminary injunction, holding “the Attorney General presented evidence in the trial court sufficient to establish a countervailing interest that outweighed any associated invasion of privacy and Plaintiffs did not provide evidence or argument sufficient to establish the existence of a feasible and effective alternative in response.”

Vehicle sales arbitration grant-and-hold. Bacon v. BMW of North America is another grant-and-hold for the Ford Motor Warranty Cases (see here), where the court limited the issue to: “Do manufacturers’ express or implied warranties that accompany a vehicle at the time of sale [by a dealer] constitute obligations arising from the sale contract [between the dealer and a buyer], permitting manufacturers to enforce an arbitration agreement in the contract pursuant to equitable estoppel?” The Sixth District’s unpublished Bacon opinion answered the question “no,” following the Second District, Division Eight, decision in Ford Motor Warranty and the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Ngo v. BMW of North America, LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 23 F.4th 942, and disagreeing with the Third District’s decision in Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486. There are other Ford Motor Warranty Cases grant-and-holds.  (See hereherehere, and here; see also here.)

Gang sentence enhancement. The court grant a pro per’s petition for review in In re Anguiano and ordered the Fifth District to vacate its summary denial of the pro per’s habeas corpus opinion and to issue an order to show cause returnable in the superior court. The issue to be decided is whether the pro per is “entitled to the stay of the gang enhancement under Penal Code section 186.22, subdivision (b)(5), based on the language of Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(2).” Just a week ago, the court dealt with gang enhancements in its People v. Clark opinion.

Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were seven criminal case grant-and-holds:  two more waiting for a decision in People v. Hardin (see here and here), which was argued over two months ago (video here), and an opinion in which should file on Monday; one more holding for decisions in two death penalty appeals — People v. Bankston and People v. Hin (see here); one waiting for Hardin, Bankston, and Hin; one more on hold for for People v. Lynch (see here); one more waiting for People v. McDavid (see here), which was argued a few weeks ago; and one more holding for People v. Emanuel (see here).