Alkhaloo v. Flower Child 44th

Full title: Hasna Alkhaloo, Plaintiff, v. Flower Child 44th, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Feb 9, 2023

No. CV-22-01836-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Feb. 9, 2023)

Opinion

CV-22-01836-PHX-DJH

02-09-2023

Hasna Alkhaloo, Plaintiff, v. Flower Child 44th, et al., Defendants.

HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After failing to timely respond to a Motion to Dismiss filed by individually-named Defendants Max Rock, Casey Lederer Frayre, and George Burten (Doc. 7), the Court ordered pro se Plaintiff Hasna Alkhaloo (“Plaintiff”) to show cause in writing explaining why the Motion should not be granted. (See generally Doc. 18). Plaintiff has since filed a Response to the Court's Order (Doc. 19).

Plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. 1 at 3). Plaintiff named Max Rock, Casey Lederer Frayre, and George Burten (collectively the “Individual Defendants”) in their individual capacities as well as Flower Child 44^th d/b/a Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC. The Individual Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7),¹ arguing that Title VII and the ADA do not provide for individual liability. (Id. at 3-4).

1 The Motion to Dismiss was originally filed by Defendants Ledever Frayre and Burten. Thereafter, Defendant Rock joined the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8).

In her Response to the Court's Order to show cause, Plaintiff does not explain why she failed to file a timely response. Nor does Plaintiff address the individual liability argument on which the Motion is based. Plaintiff's Response merely reiterates the allegations in her Complaint and requests “that the defendants be held accountable.” (Doc. 19 at 3).

The Court finds the basis for the Individual Defendant's Motion has merit. An individual cannot be held liable under Title VII or the ADA. See, e.g., Walsh v. Nevada Dept. of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033, 1038 (9th Cir. 2006). Both statutes limit liability to employers with fifteen or more employees. See Miller v. Maxwell's Intern., Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussing liability under Title VII); see also Walsh, 471 F.3d at 1038 (explaining that liability under the ADA is identical to Title VII). Therefore, although Plaintiff can proceed with her claim against Flower Child 44^th d/b/a Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC, she cannot hold the Individual Defendants liable.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Max Rock, Casey Lederer Frayre, and George Burten (Doc. 7) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to terminate Defendants Max Rock, Casey Lederer Frayre, and George Burten from this action.