Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 20STCP02105, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondent California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, et al.

On June 30, 2020, Petitioner, La’Tesa Cobbs, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. Petitioner sought an order directing Respondent, California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (“CUIAB”), to set aside its administrative decisions finding Petitioner was disqualified from unemployment benefits. On November 3, 2020, Petitioner filed the First Amended Petition which adds J. Paul Getty Trust (“Getty Trust”) as a Respondent. Petitioner is self-represented.

On August 2, 2021, the Court ordered Petitioner’s case dismissed for failure to prosecute the case.

On April 17, 2023, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen the Case. The Court denied the motion on May 31, 2023.

On July 3, 2023, Petitioner filed another Motion to Reopen the Case. The Court again denied the motion on September 12, 2023.

On September 29, 2023, Petitioner filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On November 14, 2023, CUIAB filed an Opposition. On November 15, 2023, Getty Trust filed a Joinder to CUIAB’s Opposition.

Petitioner’s Motion is a procedural anomaly. The Court dismissed this case on August 2, 2021, without prejudice and thereafter denied Petitioner’s Motions to Reopen the Case. Importantly, in denying Petitioner’s Motions to Reopen the Case, the Court considered those motions as requests for 473(b) relief and reconsideration. As such, this case is no longer at issue.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] While the Court is cognizant that Petitioner is self-represented, the Court must still apply the law as the Court would with any other litigant. (See, e.g., Nwosu v. Uba¿(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 [self-represented¿litigants¿are “ ‘treated¿like any other party and [are] entitled to the¿same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys.’ [Citation.]”].)