Mohsin v. California Department of Transportation
- James Donato
- 3:24-cv-04734
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mohsin v. California Department of Transportation, Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint without prejudice; the case was closed and further filings barred.
Syed Mohsin’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was closed. The California Department of Transportation and the named individual defendants were the defendants in the closed action.
What happened
In Mohsin v. California Department of Transportation, Syed Mohsin sued the California Department of Transportation and individual defendants over alleged employment discrimination. He asserted claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other laws.
The Department and several individual defendants asked to dismiss, arguing in part that Mohsin had not properly served them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Steven Hughes separately argued that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, were filed too late, and did not satisfy the federal pleading rules. The opinion states that Mohsin did not oppose these dismissal arguments.
Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint without prejudice, closed the case, and ordered that no further filings would be accepted. The order did not decide whether Mohsin’s discrimination claims were legally or factually valid.
The detailed version
- Mohsin v. California Department of Transportation · No. 3:24-cv-04734
- James Donato
- Sept. 4, 2025
Background
Syed Mohsin, representing himself, brought an employment-discrimination action against the California Department of Transportation and individual defendants. The complaint asserted claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other laws.
Defendants’ Arguments
The California Department of Transportation, Albert Rogers, Aaron Gabbani, Nicole Buchko, Raymond Nuezca, Daniel Armstrong, Caren Coonrod, Trisha Baird, Matthew Brady, and Ansel Ortiz sought dismissal on several grounds, including allegedly improper service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Service is the formal delivery of the summons and complaint required to notify a defendant of a lawsuit. The order explains that the plaintiff generally bears responsibility for completing service and, when service is challenged, bears the burden of showing that it was valid.
Steven Hughes separately sought dismissal, arguing that the claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, were filed too late, and failed to meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The order states that Mohsin did not oppose these arguments or the other arguments for dismissal. The provided opinion text is incomplete where it describes Mohsin’s response to the service challenge.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, closed the case, and stated that no further filings would be accepted. The order did not reach the merits of Mohsin’s discrimination claims. Judge James Donato signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.