Defendant's Demurrer
litigation without violating the Constitutional bar to litigating before any court other than the Supreme Court. Given the broad language fixing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ("in a civil action or other legal proceeding of any sort brought against the commission by a judge") it would appear that any attempt to maintain the CJP's presence in the type of litigation proposed by Plaintiff would run afoul of the plain language of Sec.Sec.(g) and (h).
Since this court has no jurisdiction over a case involving litigation against CJP brought by a judge, it would appear that this court is likely foreclosed from ruling on the issue whether the proposed Second Amended Complaint does or does not constitute a proper cause of action. Therefore, the court merely rules that Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint lacks sufficient grounds to allow its filing because of the absence of sufficient facts to justify a continuation of this litigation. Further amendments could not cure the defect that Plaintiff lacks "employee" status.
III.
Conclusion
The court denies permission to file Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint. The demurrers of the Judicial Council of California and the Stanislaus County Superior Court are hereby sustained without leave to amend. The court strikes the Plaintiff's Proposed Second Amended Complaint.
==========
Endnotes
[1] Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code Sec.12940 (hereinafter FEHA).
[2] Vernon v. State of California (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 114, 123.
[3] DeJung v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 533, 546-547.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Essick v. County of Sonoma (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 941.
[6]
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
[8] Jimenez v. U.S. Continental Marketing, Inc. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 189, 196; Lab. Code, Sec. 1102.5.
[9] Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1491; Myles v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1076
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Clifford Tong in Department 23: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 23***
The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24: ***There are no tentative rulings in Department 24***
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: UD-26-000413 - BANSAL, JANAK vs GARCIA, JOE R - Defendant's Demurrer - HEARING REQUIRED.