and third, the court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination.” Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir.2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In evaluating pretext, our precedent requires a comparative juror analysis. See Boyd v. Newland, 467 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005)). The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African-American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African-American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment- of comparably situated jurors. See Ali, 584 F.3d at 1182 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reverse the district court’s
holding that a similar motion to strike under california state law applies in federal court holding under similar circumstances that the california court of appeals finding of no pretext was unreasonable holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones