Legal Opinion

Dias v. Burberry Limited

District Court, S.D. California

Decided June 9, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00192Unknown

1Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIUBOV DIAS, Case No. 21-cv-192-MMA (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 BURBERRY LIMITED and BRADLEY MOTION TO COMPEL MOORE, 15 ARBITRATION Defendants. 16 [Doc. Nos. 13, 19] 17 18 19 Liubov Dias (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendants Burberry Limited (“Burberry”) 20 and Bradley Moore (“Moore”) (collectively, “Defendants”) discriminated and retaliated 21 against Plaintiff. See Doc. No. 1-2 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 10, 20. Defendants removed this 22 action from…

2Cases cited74 opinions

  1. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  5. Hertz Corp. v. FriendSupreme Court of the United States · 2010

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API