Quesada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAMON QUESADA, No. 2:23–cv–311–DAD–KJN Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v. (ECF No. 25, 28, 29, 30) MARTEN TRANSPORT, LTD, et al., Defendant. 16 Plaintiff alleges thirteen claims under California law related to his previous employment with defendant Marten Transport, Ltd. (See ECF No. 24.) Defendants now move for dismissal.1 (ECF Nos. 25, 28, 29, and 30.) For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions should be granted in part and denied in part as follows: the claim of CFRA interference (Claim 7) should be dismissed without leave to amend; the claims of FEHA harassment (Claim 2), breach of express oral contract (Claim 9), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Claim 13) should be dismissed with leave to amend (if desired); and the claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodations (Claim 4); CFRA retaliation (Claim 8); breach of an implied-in-fact contract (Claim 10),…