GOSAL v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, C 16-601 CRB. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161222a00
Visitors: 14
Filed: Dec. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER RE MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On calendar for Friday, January 6, 2017, are three motions in this case: (1) a motion to dismiss Defendant Zeke Lozano (dkt. 46); (2) a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mandeep Gosal's counterclaim (dkt. 38); and (3) a motion to strike Gosal's amended answer to Defendants' counterclaim (dkt. 39). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the mo
Summary: ORDER RE MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On calendar for Friday, January 6, 2017, are three motions in this case: (1) a motion to dismiss Defendant Zeke Lozano (dkt. 46); (2) a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mandeep Gosal's counterclaim (dkt. 38); and (3) a motion to strike Gosal's amended answer to Defendants' counterclaim (dkt. 39). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the mot..
More
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
On calendar for Friday, January 6, 2017, are three motions in this case: (1) a motion to dismiss Defendant Zeke Lozano (dkt. 46); (2) a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Mandeep Gosal's counterclaim (dkt. 38); and (3) a motion to strike Gosal's amended answer to Defendants' counterclaim (dkt. 39). The Court finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the motion hearing currently set for January 6, 2017, SETS a status conference for the same time on January 6, 2017, and rules as follows.
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss Lozano: the Court deems service in this case proper, rejects the suggestion that Plaintiff failed to prosecute Lozano, and holds that the sixth and seventh causes of action state a claim against Lozano. The Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to dismiss Gosal's counterclaim, as indemnification under Cal. Labor Code § 2802 is not cognizable here, and the remaining counterclaims lack merit. The Court SEVERS and STAYS Defendants' counterclaim (dkt. 19),1 and therefore also STAYS Defendants' motion to strike Gosal's amended answer to that counterclaim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court also STAYS any discovery related to that counterclaim.
Source: Leagle
