Legal Opinion

Kanbar v. O'Melveny & Myers

District Court, N.D. California

Decided July 21, 2011No. C-11-0892 EMCPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Paulina Kanbar has filed suit against Defendant O’Melveny & Myers (“OMM”), asserting claims for, inter alia, fraud, retaliation, sex discrimination, and failure to prevent discrimination. Ms. Kanbar brings- both class claims as well as individual claims. The class claims are predicated on OMM’s alleged failure to inform its. employees that, in Davis v. O’Melveny & Myers, 485 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.2007), the Ninth Circuit deemed OMM’s arbitration agreement (known as the Dispute Resolution Program…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Hill v. LockhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  4. New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Discover Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  2. Mance v. Mercedes-Benz USADistrict Court, N.D. California · 2012
  3. Jasso v. Money Mart Express, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
  4. Lucas v. Hertz Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2012
  5. Figueroa v. Thi of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2012

4 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