Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03738/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03738-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARON E. TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 

EMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN 

SERVICES DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-03738-MEJ 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Dkt. No. 14

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Defendants Contra Costa County 

Employment and Human Services Department, Renee Giometti, and Cassandra O’Neal (together, 

“Defendants”) moved to dismiss Plaintiff Sharon Taylor’s Complaint. See Mot., Dkt. No. 14. 

When Plaintiff failed to respond timely to Defendants’ Motion, the Court issued an order to show 

cause (“OSC”) why the case should not be dismissed. See OSC, Dkt. No. 18. The Court 

discharged the OSC after reviewing Plaintiff’s response thereto, and gave Plaintiff additional time 

to respond to the Motion. See Pl.’s Resp., Dkt. No. 19; Order re: CMC, Dkt. No. 20. 

Subsequently, Plaintiff timely filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the Motion. See Not. of NonOpp’n, Dkt. No. 21. Plaintiff acknowledges that she “file[d] under the wrong law” and requests 

permission to amend her complaint so that she can bring claims under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act rather than Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id. 

The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ Motion, and dismisses the complaint 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) no later 

than December 29, 2016. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court will screen 

Case 3:16-cv-03738-TSH Document 22 Filed 11/29/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the FAC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Defendant shall not respond to the FAC until 

ordered to do so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 29, 2016 

______________________________________ 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-03738-TSH Document 22 Filed 11/29/16 Page 2 of 2