Santini

Di Donato v. Santini

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 841·232 Cal. App. 3d 721·283 Cal. Rptr. 751·91 Daily Journal DAR 8867·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5780
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1991B039949California8,124 words

Opinion

Opinion

George, J.

—Appellant Adrienne Di Donato appeals from a judgment in favor of respondent Steven H. Santini, her former husband, in her action seeking damages for respondent’s alleged refusal to share the profits of joint business ventures and to accord appellant full title to a single-family residence. Appellant also appeals, as does Joshua Di Donato (her son from a prior relationship), from a judgment entered in favor of respondent on his cross-complaint, which sought partition and sale of the residence and declaratory relief.

Appellants contend that the trial court erred in permitting respondent to exercise peremptory challenges to excuse women from the jury panel for a discriminatory purpose, resulting in a predominantly male jury. In light of the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc. (1991) 500 U.S._[ 114 L.Ed.2d 660 , 111 S.Ct. 2077 ], and for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in (1) denying appellants’ motion to dismiss the jury panel without first requiring respondent to demonstrate that his peremptory challenges were exercised on a neutral basis related to the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.