Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02097-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LANA WILSON-COMBS,

NO. CIV. 07-2097 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CONSUMER AFFAIRS; RUSS

HEIMERICH; STEVE DAKOTA; MILES

BRISTOW; GLENN MASON; KEVIN

FLANAGAN; DEBORAH WELLS; MELANIE

BEDWELL; and DOES 1 through 10,

inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In its order of January 28, 2008, this court granted in

part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted. Among the claims defendants moved to dismiss were

plaintiff’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) retaliation

claims against the individual defendants. Cal. Gov’t Code §

12940(h). In denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

retaliation claims against the individual defendants, the court

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 22 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

noted:

On June 13, 2007, the California Supreme Court granted

review of a case to decide the limited issue of

“[w]hether an individual may be held personally liable

for retaliation under [FEHA].” Because the California

Supreme Court has not yet rendered a decision, this court

will follow the precedent allowing a plaintiff to bring

a retaliation claim against an individual. 

(Jan. 28, 2008 Order 7 n.3 (quoting Jones v. Lodge at Torrey

Pines P’Ship, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (2007)) (citation omitted).)

On March 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court decided

the issue and held that an “employer, but not nonemployer

individuals, may be held liable” for retaliation under FEHA. 

Jones, No. S151022, 2008 WL 553670, at *1 (Cal. Mar. 3, 2008). 

Accordingly, within seven days from the date of Order, counsel

for plaintiff shall show cause, if any there is, why plaintiff’s

FEHA retaliation claims against the individual defendants should

not now be dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for defendants may

file a brief on the effect of Jones at the same time. If nothing

is filed within the seven days, the court will dismiss

plaintiff’s FEHA retaliation claims against the individual

defendants with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 4, 2008

 

Case 2:07-cv-02097-WBS-DAD Document 22 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 2