9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
Labor/Employment,
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar. 15, 2021
Ruling: Agreements can’t bar access to public injunctive relief
The tension between the definition of public injunctive relief — a remedy that inures primarily to the benefit of the general public — and the notion that a plaintiff seeks such relief on his or her “own behalf” lay at the heart of a recent 9th Circuit decision.
Glenn A. Danas
Clarkson Law Firm P.C.Employment; Class Action Litigation; Appellate Advocacy
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
Emory Univ SOL; Atlanta GA
Glenn focuses on appeals and major motions, and has substantial experience litigating consumer and employment class actions. Mr. Danas was named one of the Top 100 Attorneys in California in 2017 by the Daily Journal, and received a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (CLAY) award in 2015 for his work on Iskanian
In McGill v. Citibank N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (2017), the California Supreme Court held that an arbitration agreement is invalid under California law if it would bar the plaintiff's access to public injunctive relief in any forum (both in court and in arbitration). In its analysis, the McGill court described public injunctive relief as a remedy...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In