Zoya Yarnykh joined Kantor & Kantor after spending several years working at a San Francisco-based nonprofit agency, where her work focused on advocating on behalf of individuals with disabilities in Social Security benefits appeals. Throughout her career, Ms. Yarnykh has exclusively represented plaintiffs, first in toxic tort litigation involving serious illnesses related to asbestos exposure, and more recently, she practiced civil rights law in the context of education of children with disabilities, with a focus on the abuse of special needs children in the school setting
In her spare time, Zoya enjoys spending time with her daughter, husband, and two dogs, reading crime fiction, traveling, and her SUP. Zoya is fluent in Russian.
- State Bar of California, 2008
- United States District Court, Northern District of California
- United States District Court, Eastern District of California
- United States District Court, Central District of California
- J.D., University of San Francisco School of Law in 2008
- B.A., Psychology, San Francisco State University, 2005
- Rangel v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. EDCV1501218DDPDTBX, 2016 WL 2732135 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) (the court granted plaintiff’s petitions for relief from Gov’t Code § 945.4, finding that the petitions, claims, and applications complied with the requirements in the statutory scheme);
- Rangel v. Chino Valley Unified Sch. Dist., No. EDCV151218DDPKKX, 2017 WL 2874468 (C.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to produce allegedly privileged documents identified by defendants in a privilege log, in part because document covered by FERPA were discoverable in the context of a civil action);
- Hugunin v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., No. 2:15-CV-00939-MCE-DB, 2017 WL 202536 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2017) (the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend, finding that the proposed pleading was not futile as alleged by defendants);
- Garedakis v. Brentwood Union Sch. Dist., No. 14CV04799PJHDMR, 2016 WL 1133715 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2016) (the court limited the scope of defendants’ subpoena seeking psychological and employment records of one of the plaintiffs).