Apryl McElroy and Jessica Troup v. Reno Police Sergeant Paul D. Sifre (Ret.), Reno Chief of Police Jason D. Soto (Ret.), City of Reno, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00451
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 APRYL MCELROY and JESSICA 6 TROUP, Case No. 3:23-CV-00451-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION v. FOR CLARIFICATION AND 8 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE RENO POLICE SERGEANT PAUL D. (ECF No. 77, 79) 9 SIFRE (RET.), an individual and in his capacity as an employee of CITY OF 10 RENO; RENO CHIEF OF POLICE JASON D. SOTO (RET.), an individual 11 and in his capacity as an employee of CITY OF RENO; CITY OF RENO, a 12 municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of 13 Nevada, and its division the CITY OF, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiffs Apryl McElroy and Jessica Troup bring this action against 17 Defendants Sergeant Paul Sifre, the City of Reno, and Reno Chief of Police Jason 18 Soto.1 Plaintiffs bring claims Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 19 U.S.C. § 2000e for sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment 20 theory, and under state law for Negligent Supervision, Training, and Retention. 21 Before the Court is Defendant Paul Sifre’s Motion for Clarification of the 22 Court’s Order on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 77.) 23 Defendant Sifre seeks clarification from the Court regarding Plaintiff’s Title VII 24 claims maintained against him as an individual. In response, Plaintiffs filed a 25 Motion to Strike the Motion for Clarification for violating Local Rule 7-2(g), 26 prohibiting supplementation without leave of court. The Court grants the 27 1 Plaintiffs also brought this action against Reno Police Department, which was 28 dismissed as a Defendant in the Court’s prior order. (ECF No. 65.) 1 Defendant’s Motion for Clarification and denies the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. 2 I. LEGAL STANDARD 3 There is no specific Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that governs the 4 standards for a motion for clarification. “The general purpose of a motion for 5 clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or 6 amend.” Spikes v. Simpson, 2:23-CV-02128-CDS-MDC, 2025 WL 2408716, at *4 7 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2025) (citing United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, 8 Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D. D.C. 2018)). “Such motions are 9 appropriate when parties are uncertain about the scope of a ruling or when the 10 ruling is reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.” Id. (citing Walker v. 11 Wolf, 4:22-CV-00222-DCN, 2024 WL 1746045 (D. Idaho Apr. 23, 2024)). 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 Defendant Sifre’s Motion for Clarification asks the Court whether its 14 conclusion that Defendant Soto cannot be sued in his individual capacity under 15 Title VII also applies to Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims against Defendant Sifre. (ECF 16 No. 77.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Sifre’s Motion for Clarification is in fact a 17 supplement to his Joinder (ECF No. 58) because it offers “new legal citations and 18 arguments for relief,” and that he essentially waives the ability to be protected by 19 Title VII’s prohibition on individual liability by not raising it in his original motion. 20 (ECF No. 79.) The Court disagrees. As a matter of law, employees cannot be sued 21 in their individual capacity under Title VII, and defendants do not need to raise 22 the issue for it to apply. Lum v. Kauai Cnty. Council, CIV. 06-00068 SOMLEK, 23 2007 WL 3408003 (D. Haw. Nov. 9, 2007), aff'd, 358 Fed. Appx. 860 (9th Cir. 24 2009) (finding that even though defendant did not argue that he could not be held 25 individually liable for Title VII in his summary judgment motion, he could still 26 not be found individually liable). 27 Defendants may not be sued in their individual capacities under Title VII, 28 Nouchet v. Mandalay Corp., No. 2:16-CV-00712-GMN-CWH, 2017 WL 985648, at 1 |} *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 14, 2017) (citing Ortez v. Washington Cnty., 88 F.3d 804, 808 2 || (9th Cir. 1996)). And because Plaintiffs sue Defendant Sifre and his employer, a 3 || court may dismiss the claim against the officer as “unnecessarily repetitive.” Id. 4 || Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Clarification and grants 5 || summary judgment with respect to Defendant Sifre as to Plaintiffs’ Title VI 6 || claims. 7 | 1. Conclusion 8 It is therefore ordered that Defendant Sifre’s Motion for Clarification (ECF 9 || No. 77) is GRANTED. 10 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (ECF No. 79) is 11 || DENIED. 12 It is further ordered that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of 13 || Defendant Sifre as to Plaintiffs Title VII claim against him. 14 15 Dated this 7 day of November 2025. 16 17 Ans floret Jon 18 ANNE R. TRAUM 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28