Saxena

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 PRATEEK SAXENA, Case No. 5:20-cv-01266-EJD

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

v. JUDGMENT; DIRECTING PLAINTIFF

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT

SANJEEV MITTAL, et al., SANJEEV MITTAL SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

Defendants. PROSECUTE

12 Re: Dkt. No. 40 13 Defendant Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc. moves for summary judgment,1 arguing that all 14 nine of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because (1) they are barred by a six-month contractual 15 limitation clause, (2) there is no evidence that the contracts that Tech Mahindra allegedly breached 16 exist, and (3) Plaintiff’s claim that he is allegedly owed stock options is contradicted by the 17 express terms of the governing stock plan. See Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment or 18 Partial Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), Dkt. No. 40. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiff Prateek Saxena 19 filed an opposition, to which…