DeJesus v. UnitedHealthcare Group

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided July 3, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00815·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 2 3 Yvonne DeJesus, Case No. 2:25-cv-00815-CDS-EJY

4 Plaintiff Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection, Adopting in Part and Deferring Ruling on 5 v. the Magistrate Judge’s Reports and Recommendations 6 UnitedHealth Group, et al.,

7 Defendants [ECF Nos. 5, 6, 8]

8 9 Plaintiff Yvonne DeJesus brings this discrimination and wrongful termination lawsuit 10 against her former employer UnitedHealth Group and her supervisor, Jennifer Quesenberry. 11 Compl., ECF No. 2-1. Because DeJesus applied to proceed in forma pauperis, United States 12 Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 13 Order, ECF No. 5. Therein, she dismissed DeJesus’s race discrimination, retaliation, and 14 potential Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claims without prejudice and with leave to 15 amend. Id. at 3. DeJesus was given until June 3, 2025, to file an amended complaint curing the 16 deficiencies identified in Judge Youchah’s order. Id. That same screening order included a 17 recommendation that I dismiss with prejudice DeJesus’s claims against Quesenberry because 18 there is no individual liability under Title VII or the ADA. Id. at 4. DeJesus had until May 27, 19 2025, to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation of Quesenberry’s dismissal. 20 Id. (citing Local Rule IB 3-2 (stating that parties wishing to object to the findings and 21 recommendations must file specific written objections within fourteen days)); see also 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(C) (same). DeJesus did not file any objections, nor did she file an amended 23 complaint, so Judge Youchah issued a second report and recommendation (R&R) that DeJesus’s 24 case be dismissed for failure to comply with the court’s order. R&R, ECF No. 6. The following 25 day, DeJesus filed an “exhibit” to her complaint. ECF No. 7. The deadline for DeJesus to object to 26 the latest recommendation of dismissal was June 23, 2025. ECF No. 6. 1 On June 27, 2025, DeJesus filed her untimely objection to both R&Rs. Obj., ECF No. 8. 2 Although her objection is untimely, in the interest of justice, I consider it here. DeJesus’s 3 objection does not meaningfully call into question the magistrate judge’s reasoning or findings. 4 Rather, DeJesus asserts that she “did not understand what [she] needed to do” and therefore 5 requests additional time to comply because she does not “have the ability to communicate via 6 electronic communication.” Id. at 1–3. The remainder of DeJesus’s objection is merely a rehash of 7 the claims asserted in her complaint. Nonetheless, given that Judge Youchah allowed DeJesus an 8 opportunity to amend her complaint, and because she is proceeding pro se, I am willing to 9 provide a brief extension of time for DeJesus to comply. 10 I. Discussion 11 In her first R&R, Judge Youchah recommends that DeJesus’s claims against Quesenberry 12 be dismissed with prejudice because they fail as a matter of law as there is no individual liability 13 under Title VII or the ADA. R&R, ECF No. 5 at 3 (citing Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l, 991 F.2d 583, 587 14 (9th Cir. 1993). Based on the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Miller, I am persuaded that individuals 15 who do not meet the statutory definition of “employer” cannot be liable under the ADA. 991 F.2d 16 at 587. Further, the court’s ruling in Padway v. Palches notes that “42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 speaks of 17 unlawful practices by the employer, and not of unlawful practices by officers or employees of the 18 employer.” 665 F.2d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 1982). I find no flaw in the magistrate judge’s conclusion. 19 I therefore overrule DeJesus’s objection and accept Judge Youchah’s recommendation that I 20 dismiss the claims against Quesenberry with prejudice. However, because I am allowing DeJesus 21 an opportunity to amend, I defer ruling on the magistrate judge’s second R&R and do not 22 dismiss at this time. 23 24 25 26 1 II. Conclusion 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DeJesus’s objection [ECF No. 8] is overruled, and the 3 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 5] is accepted and adopted in its 4 entirety. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that I defer ruling on the magistrate judge’s second report 6 and recommendation [ECF No. 6]. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if DeJesus chooses to file an amended complaint it 8 must be filed by July 30, 2025. As outlined in Judge Youchah’s order, the document must be 9 titled “Amended Complaint.” The amended complaint must contain a short and plain statement 10 demonstrating her charge of discrimination included a retaliation claim and, if she is seeking to 11 assert a claim under the ADA, a claim alleging disability discrimination. DeJesus’s amended 12 complaint must state facts demonstrating she exhausted her administrative remedies and 13 received a right to sue that included these two claims. DeJesus’s amended complaint must also 14 contain a short and plain statement of facts supporting the elements of a race and disability 15 discrimination, as well as retaliation. 16 DeJesus is advised that if she files an amended complaint, the original complaint (ECF 17 No. 2-1) no longer serves any function in this case. As such, the amended complaint must be 18 complete in and of itself without reference to prior pleadings or other documents. The court 19 cannot refer to a prior pleading or other documents to make the plaintiff’s amended complaint 20 complete. This means the amended complaint must contain all claims and factual allegations 21 that DeJesus wishes to pursue in this action, including any attachments she wants to include as 22 part of the amended complaint. 23 Because Quesenberry has been dismissed with prejudice, DeJesus may not re-allege any 24 Title VII or ADA claims against that individual. 25 26 1 If DeJesus fails to comply with this order, or if DeJesus elects not to file an amended 2} complaint, the court will adopt the recommendation to disfpiss this case with no further notice. 3 Dated: July 3, 2025 // Li, op States District Judge 6 / 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DeJesus v. UnitedHealthcare Group, (D. Nev. 2025).

DeJesus v. UnitedHealthcare Group (DeJesus v. UnitedHealthcare Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related