Bryant v. City of Pomona CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Dec 27, 2024 No. B326862Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that even if the trial court erred in its allotment of peremptory challenges under Code of Civil Procedure section 231, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the error resulted in prejudice.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its allotment of peremptory challenges to multiple defendants under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.
Whether any error in the allotment of peremptory challenges was prejudicial to the plaintiffs.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We need not decide whether the trial court erred in allotting the peremptory challenges because any error was not prejudicial.”

“Plaintiffs’ argument is too speculative to demonstrate that a more favorable result would have been probable if the court had limited defendants to four peremptory challenges each.”

“As plaintiffs cannot prove prejudice, i.e. that a different result would have been probable if defendants had received eight peremptory challenges collectively, we must affirm the judgment.”

Filed 12/27/24 Bryant v. City of Pomona CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

JULIAN BRYANT, et al., B326862

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV46308) v.

CITY OF POMONA, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Frederick Shaller, Judge. Affirmed. Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs and Rickey Ivie; Pollak, Vida & Barer and Daniel P. Barer for Plaintiffs and Appellants. McCune & Harber, Dana John McCune, and Dominic A. Quiller for Defendant and Respondent City of Pomona.

Kronenberg Law, William S. Kronenberg, and Jason K. Cheung for Defendant and Respondent Foothill Transit, Inc. _________________________ Plaintiffs Julian, Rochelle, and Jerry Bryant appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants City of Pomona (the City) and Foothill Transit, Inc. (Foothill) (collectively, defendants), following a jury trial on plaintiffs’ dangerous condition of the road case. Plaintiffs argue the trial court erroneously afforded defendants more peremptory challenges than permitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 231,1 and defendants’ exercise of 12 peremptory challenges, rather than the eight they should have been allowed, changed the jury’s composition to plaintiffs’ detriment. We affirm because plaintiffs cannot show prejudice. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND While crossing a Pomona street mid-block early in the morning to catch a bus, 15-year-old Julian Bryant2 was hit by a speeding car driven by Edward Reed. Julian suffered severe head trauma from the collision and is now unable to speak or do anything independently. As of the time of trial, Julian had been in a convalescent facility for three years. Plaintiffs sued the City for negligence and dangerous condition of public property. Plaintiffs alleged the bus stop was placed in a dangerous location, near the southern end of the

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2 We subsequently refer to Julian Bryant by his first name because he shares his last name with the other plaintiffs, his parents.

Bryant v. City of Pomona CA2/3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

ADAMS, J.

AI Brief