Parmjit Nijjar v. Peterbilt Motors Company, a Division of Paccar, Inc., and Does I-X

42 F.3d 1401 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Parmjit NIJJAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, A DIVISION OF PACCAR, INC., and Does I-X, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-15695. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1994. Decided Nov. 17, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, FERGUSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Parmjit Nijjar appeals the district court's holding in favor of his former employer, Peterbilt Motors, on four grounds. Nijjar contends that: 1) Peterbilt breached its implied employment contract with Nijjar; 2) Peterbilt violated California law by dismissing Nijjar without notification of the charges of sexual harassment levied against him; 3) the district court erred in finding that Nijjar failed to mitigate his damages by making reasonable efforts to find comparable employment, and that 4) the district court erred in refusing to allow him to amend his complaint. We affirm. I. 3 Nijjar contends…