Glenn Danas brings over a decade of experience to Robins Kaplan’s national Appellate Advocacy and Guidance Group. Insightful and responsive, Glenn’s clear writing, attention to detail, and skill at oral argument have helped him to achieve remarkable results for clients.
Glenn has argued over 35 appeals in the various California appellate courts, including many divisions of the California Court of Appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and multiple cases in the California Supreme Court. In recent years, Glenn has achieved several significant wins before the California Supreme Court, including the consumer protection matter McGill v. Citibank and in employment cases Williams v. Marshalls and Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles.
These successes have earned Glenn recognition from numerous organizations. In 2017 Glenn was named among the “Top 100 Attorneys in California” by the Daily Journal, and in 2015, Glenn’s work on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles earned him a California Lawyer Attorney of the Year (“CLAY”) award from California Lawyer magazine. Glenn was also named one of the “Top 20 Attorneys in California under 40” in 2013 by the Daily Journal, and has been named one of the “Top Labor and Employment Attorneys in California” by the Daily Journal each year from 2015-2018.
Glenn graduated from Emory University School of Law with honors, and was a member of the Emory Law Journal. He received his undergraduate degree from Cornell University, where he attained a B.S. in Industrial and Labor Relations. Following law school, Glenn served as a law clerk for the Honorable U.W. Clemon, Chief U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama.
A frequent speaker, Glenn regularly presents his thought leadership on California appellate and employment law issues at conferences and seminars.
Williams v. Marshalls of CA, LLC, 3 Cal.5th 531 (2017), in which the California Supreme Court unanimously held that a plaintiff bringing an action under the California Labor Code’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) is entitled to the names and contact information of other potentially aggrieved employees at the outset of the case, without having to satisfy a series of preliminary evidentiary hurdles.
McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017), in which the California Supreme Court unanimously held that claims for public injunctive relief brought under California’s consumer protection statutes may not be waived by mandatory arbitration agreements.
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2014), in which the California Supreme Court unanimously held that employees may not be forced to waive their right to bring actions under the California Labor Code’s PAGA. Glenn was lead counsel and argued the matter before the California Supreme Court, and then worked with co-counsel to preserve the employees’ victory in Iskanian by defeating petitions for certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court both in Iskanian and of the same issue in in Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC v. Brown, 135 S. Ct. 2377 (June 1, 2015).
Baumann v. Chase Investment Services Corp., 747 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied Dec. 15, 2014, in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and held that PAGA suits may not be removed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) or under traditional diversity jurisdiction, remanding Mr. Baumann’s suit to state court.
Vitolo v. Bloomingdale’s, 669 Fed. Appx. 890 (9th Cir. Oct. 24, 2016), cert. denied, 2017 WL 1001331 (June 19, 2017), applying the Iskanian rule to a case having arisen in federal court.
Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 733 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2013), in which the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that Ralphs’ arbitration agreement was unfair in numerous respects, rejected Ralphs’ arguments in favor of Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preemption, and sent the case back to the district court to resume litigation.
- Pugs N’ Pals of Southern California
- Basset Rescue Network
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.