Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00601/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-00601-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANDEEP GOSAL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, 

ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 16-601 CRB

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO STRIKE

AND DISMISS

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 

Case 3:16-cv-00601-CRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court also STAYS any discovery related to that counterclaim.

G:\CRBALL\2016\601\Gosal order re motions to strike and dismiss.wpd 2

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.

Dated: December 21, 2016

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cv-00601-CRB Document 69 Filed 12/21/16 Page 2 of 2