Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCP04284, Date: 2024-04-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCP04284 Hearing Date: April 4, 2024 Dept: 34
On November 22,
2023, Plaintiff filed a 35-page, single-spaced complaint. Plaintiff, under the name of “The Deliciae
Family, Magnificat.se.agapo™ sued “The Descendats of Abraham
Abraham.apogonos™.
The complaint
apparently seeks some relief for all of the “born and unborn children of [Plaintiff]
magnificent.se.agapo™.” (Complaint, p.
1.) The complaint lists scores of
alleged “disabilities, dysfunctions, and abuses endured by
magnificent.se.agapo™.” (Complaint, pp.
3-6.)
According to
the complaint, there are 227 alleged defendants who are “potential biological
fathers to born and unborn children of magnificent.se.agapo™.” (Complaint, pp. 7-12.) These defendants include Warren Buffet, Bill
Gates, Prince Philip, King Charles, Elon Musk, Pope Francis, the Dalai Lama,
President Vladimir Putin, President Barack Obama, President Joseph Biden,
President Xi Jinping, dozens of prime ministers, and numerous celebrities. (Id.)
The complaint
also lists 61 alleged female defendants as “potential female surrogates to born
and unborn children of magnificent.se.agapo™.”
(Complaint, pp. 12-13.). These
include First Lady Jill Biden, former First Lady Melania Trump, and dozens of
celebrities.
The complaint
appears to ask the Court to order all of Plaintiff’s born and unborn biological
children to be housed with her in the country of Monaco. (Complaint, p. 14.)
The complaint is, to put it mildly,
unintelligible.
A Case
Management Conference was scheduled for today. Although the case was filed over
four months ago, none of the Defendants (i.e., the Descendants of Abraham),
have not been served. Plaintiff did not
file a Case Management Statement.
Plaintiff did not appear at today’s hearing.
The Court finds
this case to be objectively frivolous.
This court has the inherent power
to dismiss a case. (See Code of Civil Procedure §§ 581(m) [“provisions of
this section shall not be deemed to be an exclusive enumeration of the court's
power to dismiss an action or dismiss a complaint as to a defendant”] and
583.150 [“This chapter does not limit or affect the authority of a court to
dismiss an action or impose other sanctions . . . under inherent authority of
the court.”]; See also Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915ff; Huang
v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 181-182; Code of Civil
Procedure § 187.) Because the court’s inherent power is unconfined by
statute and need only be exercised in unusual situations, the absence of appellate
authority directly on point is no bar to the exercise of the trial court’s
discretion. (See Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (2007)
155 Cal.App.4th 736, 757-759.)
The
Court recognizes that it has other options and could choose not to dismiss the
case. The Court could reschedule the Case
Management Conference and order Plaintiff to serve Defendants. The Court chooses not to do this for at least
two reasons.
First, each time a case is called, it costs the Court
and the taxpayers money. In 1993, the
California state legislature estimated that "the average cost to the court
for processing a civil case . . . through judgment is . . . $3,943 for
each judge day. . . .” (CCP §
1775(f).) That figure is no doubt
substantially higher today. This Court
has been unable to find any current estimates for the cost of calling a case,
but whatever that amount is, it is too much for a frivolous filing.
Second, if Plaintiff were to serve any of the
hundreds of alleged defendants, these defendants would have to spend thousands
or tens of thousands of dollars to file Motions to Quash for lack of
jurisdiction or demurrers. If the 200+
defendants that are listed in the complaint were served, it would easily cost
defendants well over a million dollars to have this case dismissed. (For this
calculation, the Court is assuming that a defendant would be able to hire an
attorney to file a dispositive motion for only $5,000.) This is unjust.
In Huang v. Hanks (2018)
23 Cal.App.5th 179, a plaintiff filed requests for civil harassment
restraining orders against a series of prominent figures in the political,
religious, and business worlds, claiming that they controlled a mental health
facility in Texas, were controlling his mind with “nano probes,” and had
attacked his mouth. The trial court denied the requests out of hand, citing no
authority. Id. at 181. The Court of Appeal held that this
action was an appropriate remedy, necessary to protect defendants’ rights “to
be free from the monetary expense and other costs of responding to appellant’s
frivolous claims that cannot avoid being categorized as ‘fantastic,’
‘delusional,’ or ‘fanciful.’” Id. at 182.
The Court also understands that it
may, “upon its own motion grant a motion for judgment on the
pleadings." (CCP §438, subd. (b)(2).)
However, this would require allowing Plaintiff to file an opposition
before the Court rules on the motion. Plaintiff
would thus spend another dozen hours on an opposition, and the Court and its
staff would spend countless hours analyzing the Complaint line-by-line to
determine if it possibly contains a cause of action. (See CCP §438 subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)
Again,
this would waste taxpayers’ money and detract from the Court’s obligation to do
justice for the 600 non-frivolous cases on its calendar
This Court agrees with Justice Souter when he stated that a
judge should be able to dismiss claims “that are sufficiently fantastic to defy
reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff’s recent
trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.”
(Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 696 [129 S. Ct. 1937, 1959, 173
L. Ed. 2d 868] (2009) J. Souter, dis.)
The Court also understands that there may be no directly
relevant case authority on this point. Although
this is a final order of dismissal, were it an interlocutory order, the Court would
certify this issue for appellate review.
(CCP § 166.1).
The case is
DISMISSED with prejudice.