Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se employee’s amended complaint alleging Title VII and ADA claims and defamation. The court dismisses the Title VII and ADA claims against individual defendants with prejudice and dismisses with prejudice the defamation claim based on statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings, while granting leave to amend the remaining claims within 30 days.
Holdings
- The amended complaint failed to provide fair notice of the claims and the grounds on which they rested because it combined race- and disability-discrimination allegations and defamation allegations in an unclear narrative, did not clearly differentiate the claims or supporting facts, and did not identify which claims were asserted against which defendants.
- Title VII and ADA claims cannot be maintained against individual defendants in their individual capacities; the claims against Fisher, Sevilla, and Mendoza were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
- Defamation claims based on statements Sevilla made to NERC and ESD during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are barred by absolute privilege and were dismissed with prejudice because amendment would be futile.
- Plaintiff was granted leave to amend claims not dismissed with prejudice, subject to filing a complete second amended complaint within 30 days that includes all facts, claims, defendants, and properly separated numbered allegations.
Questions Presented
- Whether the amended complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 because it presented multiple claims in an unclear narrative, failed to separate claims, and failed to identify which facts and claims applied to which defendants.
- Whether Title VII and ADA claims may be maintained against individual supervisors or coworkers in their individual capacities.
- Whether alleged defamatory statements made to the Nevada Equal Rights Commission and Nevada Employment Security Division during judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged.
- Whether Plaintiff should receive leave to amend claims that were not dismissed with prejudice.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (11)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 95 (2007)(followed)
- Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54(followed)
- Knapp v. Hogan, 738 F.3d 1106, 1109(followed)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 & n.3 (2007)(followed)
- Morrow v. City of Oakland, 690 Fed.Appx 517, 518 (9th Cir.)(followed)
- Walsh v. Nevada Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1037(followed)
- Pope v. Motel 6, 114 P.3d 77, 282 (Nev. 2005)(followed)
- Dubric v. A Cab LLC, No. 215CV02136RCJCWH, 2016 WL 1449605, at *2-3 (D. Nev. Apr. 12, 2016)(followed)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…