GONZAGA vs MANN, et al.

Administrative Exhaustion As to Defendants’ claim that Plaintiff Ryan Gonzaga (“Plaintiff”) has not sufficiently pled administrative exhaustion as to his FEHA claims, “[i]t is plaintiffs burden to plead and prove timely exhaustion of administrative remedies, such as filing a sufficient complaint with the DFEH and obtaining a right-to-sue letter.” (Kim v. Konad USA Distribution, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1336, 1345)(citations omitted).) The administrative complaint must set forth the “particulars” of the alleged discrimination.” (Gov.

Code § 12960(c); 2 CCR § 10007; Martin v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1718, 1724.) Failure to assert claims in the DFEH complaint bars court action on those claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Wills v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 143, 157-158.) Here, although Plaintiff asserts that he obtained a right to sue letter from the Civil Rights Department (Complaint ¶ 23), he only attaches the letter with the date and details of his administrative complaint with his Opposition in requesting its judicial notice. (RJN, Ex.

A.) From review of the letter, Plaintiff appeared to have alleged race-based harassment. Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently shown administrative exhaustion and need only attach a copy of the Right-to-Sue letter to an amended Complaint.

Plaintiff shall serve and file a First Amended Complaint by no later than September 3, 2026.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motion to Strike

The Motion of Defendants Surinder Mann; Baljit Mann; Harmit Mann; Rentoak LLC; Friendly Cab Inc.; and Five Rivers Transit Solutions Inc. (“Defendants”) to Strike as to punitive damages is DENIED. The Complaint sufficiently alleges ultimate facts of punitive damages against Defendants, by alleging claims including FEHA violations, but as Plaintiff notes, there is no true heightened pleading requirement for a punitive damage prayer based on malice or oppression (with the exception of fraud). (Oppo., p. 8:11-13.) Thus, at this stage, Plaintiff’s complained-of conduct concerning harassment based on ethnicity is sufficient to support seeking punitive damages. Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV173663: GONZAGA vs MANN, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Demurrer with Motion to Strike; filed by Surinder Mann (Defendant) + CRS# 716941311799 in Department 520 NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on August 13, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on August 12, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.