Case 1:16-cv-00540-AJT-MSN Document 37 Filed 07/28/17 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 3273 qualified immunity with respect to Davidson’s claims. Id. at 200-01 (finding no privity between entity and individual employees sued in their individual capacities). B. Sovereign Immunity with Respect to Counts I-VII Against Individual Defendants in Their Official Capacities Under the Virginia Code, [t]he members of the governing bodies of any locality or political subdivision and the members of boards, commissions, agencies and authorities thereof and other governing bodies of any local governmental entity . . . shall be immune from suit arising from the exercise or failure to exercise their discretionary or governmental authority as members . . . . However, the immunity granted by this section shall not apply to conduct constituting intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence. Va. Code § 15.2-1405. Here, the Individual Defendants are immune from lawsuit as to Counts I-VII in their official capacities. 9 They qualify as “members of boards . . . and authorities thereof,” the suit “aris[es] from the exercise or failure to exercise their discretionary or governmental authority as members,” and their conduct does not constitute “intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence.” LCSB had the statutory authority to ban individuals like Davison from entering the premises it used for its meetings and to take the various actions of which Davison now complains. The issue is not whether Defendants were correct or justified in their decisions to take these actions or exercised their authority appropriately but whether Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to make plausible his claim that they engaged in intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence. The Plaintiff has failed to allege facts that make plausible his claim that the Individual Defendants engaged in intentional or willful misconduct or gross negligence as to his claims in Counts I-VII. Counts I-VII filed against Individual Defendants in their official capacities are therefore also dismissed based on sovereign immunity. 9 Even if res judicata did not serve to bar claims against Individual Defendants based on events alleged to have occurred prior to December 22, 2015, those claims would be independently barred by sovereign immunity. 17