Golden v. O'Melveny & Myers LLP
United States District Court for the Central District of California
No. 2:14-cv-08725-CAS(AGRx),
Facts
Jeffrey Golden (plaintiff) and O’Melveny & Myers LLP (O’Melveny) (defendant) went into arbitration to resolve a dispute. O’Melveny was represented by Gibson Dunn (Gibson). During the arbitration, and after Golden raised the issue of possible bias, the arbitrator disclosed that his son was applying for employment at O’Melveny, Gibson, and other law firms in the area. To remove this potential hiring of the arbitrator’s son by either firm as an issue, Gibson and O’Melveny said neither would hire the arbitrator’s son. Golden nonetheless sought the arbitrator’s recusal, this time arguing that O’Melveny and Gibson’s decision not to hire the arbitrator’s son did not remove the possibility of bias but instead exacerbated it. The arbitrator refused to recuse, the dispute was arbitrated, and the arbitrator issued a final award. Golden sought a vacatur on grounds the arbiter was biased.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Snyder, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
