Unlike the Ninth Circuit, you don't see many opinions at all from the California Court of Appeal that are per curiam. So when it happens, as it does here, it's worth at least brief mention.
My (somewhat uneducated) guess is that the Court of Appeal does so here because the ultimate result is the denial of a writ of supersedeas, and maybe the thought is that such a result in such a proceeding is best addressed in an opinion without individual authorship. Even though doctrine doesn't require such a result at all, it just "makes sense" that such a result would be per curiam.
