Opinion
NO. CIV. 07-2097 WBS DAD.
March 4, 2008
ORDER
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 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.