Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 21, 2020

Brownlee v. Mohler

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-06554
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
EmploymentMotion to DismissCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Brownlee v. Mohler, Judge Rogers granted dismissal motions against individual defendants, substituted San Francisco for Laguna Honda Hospital, and set a conference.

Who this affects

Gayle L. Brownlee’s claims against the six individual defendants were dismissed with prejudice. Laguna Honda Hospital was replaced as a party by the City and County of San Francisco, while the order set the case for a case management conference.

What happened

In Brownlee v. Mohler, the defendants asked the court to dismiss Gayle L. Brownlee’s Title VII claims against individual employees and supervisors, arguing that those individuals cannot be personally liable under Ninth Circuit law. Brownlee was representing herself and did not initially respond to the motion.

The court treated Brownlee’s later filing as both a statement that she did not oppose dismissing the individual defendants and a request to substitute the City and County of San Francisco for Laguna Honda Hospital. The court granted the dismissal motions, dismissed the six individual defendants with prejudice, and made that substitution.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also warned Brownlee to meet future deadlines and set a case management conference for July 13, 2020. The order terminated Docket Numbers 12 and 21.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Brownlee v. Mohler · No. 4:19-cv-06554
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Apr. 21, 2020

Background

Defendants Kristiane Mohler, Julian San Jose, Rowena Patel, Wilmie Hathaway, Susan Ma Sabai, Anna Calderon, and Laguna Honda Hospital moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that, under Ninth Circuit authority, Title VII does not impose individual liability on employees, coworkers, or supervisors; only an employer may be liable under that statute.

Brownlee, who was proceeding without a lawyer, did not initially respond. The court ordered her to respond by March 31, 2020, and warned that failure to respond would result in granting the pending motion. Brownlee later filed a document titled “Motion to Dismiss Against Listed Defendants.” The court construed that filing as both a statement that she did not oppose dismissing the individual defendants and a request to add the City and County of San Francisco in place of Laguna Honda Hospital.

Ruling

The court granted the motions to dismiss. It dismissed Kristiane Mohler, Julian San Jose, Rowena Patel, Wilmie Hathaway, Susan Ma Sabai, and Anna Calderon from the matter with prejudice. It substituted the City and County of San Francisco for Laguna Honda Hospital as a party. The order also warned Brownlee to comply with future court deadlines, set a case management conference for July 13, 2020, and terminated Docket Numbers 12 and 21.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.