Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 23STCV30211, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30211    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 31

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 31

HEARING DATE:      November 20, 2024                                    TRIAL DATE:  Not set

CASE:                         Sophia Henry, General Executrix/Affiant/Plaintiff v. Rob Bonta, Acting as California Attorney General for State of California, et al.

CASE NO.:                      23STCV30211

PLAINTIFFS’ DEMURRER

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ADVANCE DEFAULT JUDGMENT HEARING UNDER THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT

I.          INTRODUCTION

On December 12, 2023, Plaintiff Sophia Henry, a self-represented litigant, filed this action against Defendants Rob Bonta, acting as California Attorney General for the State of California (“Bonta”), Ana M. Lasso, acting as Director of Department of General Services Office of Risk and Insurance Management for State of California (“Lasso”), the State of California (the “State”), Employment Development Department (“EDD”), and Paid Family Leave Office—Fresno (“PFLO”) (collectively, “Defendants”), arising from the denial of Plaintiff’s Paid Family Leave claim.  Plaintiff seeks relief for alleged wrongdoing on the basis that she is “under consular jurisdiction pursuant to Treaty Law as Bloodright Heir by Blood, Deed, Creed, and Custom to: i) Treaty of Peace with Morocco of 1787/1836 (signed at Meccanez; copy at Tangiers) between the United States of North America and Moroccan Empire, which is in full force and effect under Article 25 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1836, and the organic Constitution for the United States of North America.”  Based on those rights, Plaintiff alleges she was entitled to, and wrongfully denied, benefits in the amount of “Three Thousand Four Hundred Eighty ($3,480.00) Dollars.”

Based on her treaty rights, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants “are responsible in some manner for the claimed tortious interference with Trade and Commerce by irreparable injury to Plaintiff through: i) economic hardship / mental anxiety / psychological and emotional distress caused by failure / refusal or delay to make payment under an insurance policy; ii) bad faith; iii) wrongfully disqualifying benefits; iv) wrongfully subjecting insured to biased claims handling; v) wrongfully withdrawing benefits due; vi) adopting an inconsistent position in refusing claim; vii) breach of contract; viii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failure to investigate claim; ix) violation of California Insurance Code § 790.035; x) violation of California Labor Code § 5814; xi) violation of California Civil Code § 3294; and xii) violation of 15 § U.S.C. § 1; 15 U.S.C. § 2; 15 U.S.C. § 45; 15 U.S.C. § 1125; 19 U.S.C. § 1592.”  

Procedural Background

On March 8, 2024, the clerk of the court entered default against the State of California, EDD, and Paid Family Leave Office – Fresno.

On March 26, 2024, the clerk of the court entered default against Bonta and Lasso.

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Advance Default Judgment Hearing Under the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA). On June 18, 2024, Plaintiff also filed a Request for

Attorney’s (Consul’s) Fees Under the Trading With The Enemy Act (TWEA).

On July 8, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion for Order Setting Aside Default Based Upon Defective Notice, and Removal to Federal Court (Motion to Set Aside Default). 

On August 6, 2024, the court continued Plaintiff’s Motion to Advance to be heard concurrently with Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default.

On September 4, 2024, the court granted in part, Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default.  The defaults entered on March 8, 2024, and March 26, 2024, were vacated.  Further, the ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default mooted Plaintiff’s Motion to Advance.

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the court’s order setting aside default.  The appeal is pending.

On September 11, 2024, Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

Before the court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Demurrer to Defendants’ Answer, and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions. 

II.        DISCUSSION & LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a) provides, “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”

Here, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the court’s September 4, 2024, order vacating the defaults entered against Defendants.  If Plaintiff’s appeal is meritorious, the defaults will be re-entered against Defendants, which will moot Plaintiff’s demurrer and discovery motion.  The appeal embraces the matters before this court. 

III.      CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the matter is STAYED.  Plaintiffs’ motions, including Plaintiff’s discovery motion scheduled to be heard on November 27, 2024, are taken off calendar. 

            The court sets a Status Conference re: Status of Appeal for January 24, 2025, at 9:00 AM.

Defendants to give notice. 

Dated:   November 20, 2024