Stevanus Edward v. President Obama et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

C.D. Cal.December 8, 2016

R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4843-4930-1053.1 -1- DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) GERMAN A. MARCUCCI, State Bar No. 222237 TERRY ANASTASSIOU, State Bar No. 157996 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1619 Telephone: (213) 312-2000 Facsimile: (213) 312-2001 Email: german.marcucci@rmkb.com terry.anastassiou@rmkb.com Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, erroneously sued as “US Fire Insurance, Ca”; LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, erroneously sued as “LWP Claim Solutions, Sacramento, CA”; and ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY, erroneously sued as “Defendant Attorney RMKB, CA” UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION – SANTA ANA STEVANUS EDWARDS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT OBAMA, et.al. Defendants. Case No. SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) Date: January 23, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 10C Honorable James V. Selna, U.S.D.J. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on January 23, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 10C of the above-entitled Court located at 411 West 4th Street, in Santa Ana, California, Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS”)(“LWP Claim”) erroneously sued herein as “LWP Claims Solutions, Inc.” will move, and hereby does move for an order dismissing the complaint of Plaintiff STEVANUS Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:684 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4843-4930-1053.1 - 2 - DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) EDWARDS (“Plaintiff”). This motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12, sub- sections (b)(5), (b)(6) and (e), and 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)), on the grounds that the complaint by Plaintiff is uncertain, unintelligble, and fails to state a claim against USFI based upon which this Court may grant relief. This motion is based on this notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, declaration of German Marcucci and request for judicial notice (with exhibits), and such other evidence and argument as the Court may choose to consider. Wherefore, Defendant LWP Claim Solutions respectfully requests that this Court order the complaint of Plaintiff dismissed. Respectfully Submitted: Dated: December 8, 2016 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY By: /s/ German A. Marcucci GERMAN A. MARCUCCI TERRY P. ANASTASSIOU Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, erroneously sued as “US Fire Insurance, Ca”; LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, erroneously sued as “LWP Claim Solutions, Sacramento, CA”; and ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY, erroneously sued as “Defendant Attorney RMKB, CA Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:685 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) GERMAN A. MARCUCCI, State Bar No. 222237 TERRY ANASTASSIOU, State Bar No. 157996 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1619 Telephone: (213) 312-2000 Facsimile: (213) 312-2001 Email: german.marcucci@rmkb.com terry.anastassiou@rmkb.com Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, erroneously sued as “US Fire Insurance, Ca”; LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, erroneously sued as “LWP Claim Solutions, Sacramento, CA”; and ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY, erroneously sued as “Defendant Attorney RMKB, CA” UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION – SANTA ANA STEVANUS EDWARDS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT OBAMA, et.al. Defendants. Case No. SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) Date: January 23, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 10C Honorable James V. Selna, U.S.D.J. Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:686 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4837-7697-5165.1 - i - INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.............................................. 3 A. Plaintiff’s Claims .................................................................................. 3 B. Allegations Against LWP Claims......................................................... 5 1. The San Bernardino County Superior Court Suit Against LWP Claims ............................................................................... 5 2. The First District Court Suit Naming LWP Claims ................... 5 3. The Riverside County Superior Court Suit Naming LWP Claims ......................................................................................... 6 4. The Instant Lawsuit .................................................................... 6 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................. 7 I. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT AS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA................................. 7 A. The Judgment Against Plaintiff In His Prior District Court Action Is Res Judicata To The Claims Herein ..................................... 8 1. Identity Of Claims ...................................................................... 8 2. Final Judgment On The Merits................................................... 9 3. Identity Or Privity Of Parties ................................................... 10 B. The Judgments Against Plaintiff In The Superior Court Actions Are Res Judicata To The Claims Herein ............................................ 10 1. The San Bernardino Superior Court Suit Is Res Judicata To The Claims Herein .............................................................. 10 2. The Riverside County Superior Court Judgment Is Res Judicata To Plaintiff’s Suit Herein ........................................... 12 C. Conclusion Regarding Application Of Res Judicata Herein .............. 13 II. EVEN IF THE INSTANT COMPLAINT IS EXAMINED SEPARATELY, FROM ITS PREDECESSORS, THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLEAD ANY VIABLE CLAIMS AGAINST LWP CLAIMS........................................................................................................ 14 A. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Frivolous Lawsuit Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)........................................................... 14 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Barred By The Exclusive Remedy Provisions Of Worker’s Compensation .............................................. 15 III. NO LEAVE TO AMEND IS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE ................... 17 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 19 Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:687 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page - ii - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECISIONS Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019 (9th Cir.1988) ..........................................................................................15 Ballentine v. Craford, 563 F.Supp.627 (N.D.Ind.1983)......................................................................................15 Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788 (2010) ........................................................................................................10 Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir.2009) ......................................................................................8, 10 Cervantes v. Great American Ins. Co., 140 Cal.App.3d 763 (1983) ..............................................................................................16 Cont'l Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 156 (1987)............................................................................................16 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) .............................................................................................................14 Droz v. Pacific National Ins. Co. 138 Cal.App.3d 181 (1982) ..............................................................................................16 Everfield v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 115 Cal.App.3d 15 (1981) ................................................................................................16 Garza v. City of Tulare, 53 Fed.Appx. 430 (9th Cir.2002)....................................................................................17 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ...........................................................................................................17 Hill v. Estelle, 423 F.Supp. 690 (S.D.Tex1976) .....................................................................................15 In re: Cole’s Check Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 332 (1963) ..............................................................................................12 Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:688 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued) Page - iii - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 1 (1989) ..............................................................................................................16 Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems, 430 F.3d 985 (9th Cir.2005).............................................................................................15 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) ...........................................................................................................14 Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699 (9th Cir.1998)...............................................................................................7 Phillips v. Crawford & Co., 202 Cal.App.3d 383 (1988) ..............................................................................................16 Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2006)..............................................................................................7 Stewart v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 297 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.2002).....................................................................................7, 8, 10 STATUTES VII U.S.C. § 702 .......................................................................................................................15 28 U.S.C. 1453 ............................................................................................................................7 28 U.S.C. 1738 ..........................................................................................................................10 28 U.S.C. 1915 ....................................................................................................................14, 15 28 U.S.C. 1916 ............................................................................................................................5 California Labor Code § 3602(a) ..........................................................................................16 Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6)...........................................................................................................7 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) ...............................................................................17 Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:689 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 -1- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) INTRODUCTION Defendant LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC. (“LWP Claims,” erroneously sued herein as “LWP Claims Solutions, CA”) submits the following memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD (“Plaintiff”). The complaint before the Court, filed ten weeks after another department of this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s previous lawsuit against USF as “Legally and/or factually patently frivolous,”1 is another frivolous and unintelligible screed alleging thirty (30) causes of action against more than two dozen defendants. Plaintiff’s pleading is without a scintilla of substance, and the Court should again dismiss his lawsuit. On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages in San Bernardino County Superior Court (Edwards v. LWP Claims Solutions Inc., San Bernardino Docket CIVDS1516966). After the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (Marcucci Decl. ¶2 and Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) 1), the Superior Court sustained LWP Claims’ demurrer to that complaint without leave to amend on June 20, 2016. (Marcucci Decl. ¶ and RJN 3.) The following day (June 21, 2016), Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages in this Court (Edward v. President Obama et al., U.S.D.C., EDCV 16-1312-JGB (KK)) in which he alleged thirty-tree (33) causes of action against President Obama, his administration, the FBI and NSA, five hospitals, seven medial electronic scanning companies, a police department and “Jamba Juice.” (Marcucci Decl. ¶5 and RJN 4.) The causes of action included attempted murder, RICO, First and Fourth Amendment violations, torture, terror and criminal threats. As against LWP Claims, moving-party defendant herein, Plaintiff alleged (inter alia): 1 This is in addition to co-defendant UNITED FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, also previously sued, which has filed its own motion to strike the complaint. Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:690 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 2 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) “[My] “biggest fear, trauma and torture pain since I’m dealing with Worker Compensation Insurance LWP Claim Sacramento and US Fire Insurance because President Obama and Government Agency protecting and support their business conspiracy. President Obama abusing his executive power by using his power to help the insurance to do illegal action and provide government agents including FBI agency, NSA agency and Private military to spy, tracking also targeting Plaintiff with NSA Surveillance and other electronic device for 7 days/24 hours business conspiracy insurance. I don't have any criminal history and I'm never do nothing wrong with my injury. Plaintiff have life threatening injuries internal bleeding on upper abdomen and thoracic ribcage since 2012 to present.” (RJN 1 [Prior Edward Complaint ¶35].) Plaintiff also alleged electronic surveillance, conspiracy to violate his human rights, attempted murder and other nefarious conduct against LWP Claims. Plaintiff sought an order permitting him to proceed in forma pauperis and, on June 23, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato recommended that the application be denied on the ground that the action “is legally and/or factually patently frivolous.” (Marcucci Decl. ¶6 and RJN 5.) The Honorable Jesus Bernal of this Court adopted the recommendation on June 24, 2016, ordering that the case be dismissed. (RJN 5.) Six days later (June 30, 2016), Plaintiff filed his third suit, this time back in state court (Edward v. LWP Claim Solutions, Inc.. Riverside County Superior Court Docket RIC 1608069). (Marcucci Decl. ¶7 and RJN 6.) That suit was also dismissed by granting of a demurrer without leave to amend. While dismissal of that suit was pending, Plaintiff filed the suit presently Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:691 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 3 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) before this Court. To the extent it can be understood, this instant suit appears to raise the same allegations against LWP Claims (and President Obama, the FBI and the NSA) as those which another department of this Court has already found untenable. Plaintiff is not entitled to respond to dismissal of his meritless claims by re-filing the lawsuit. On this ground alone, the Court should order the suit dismissed. Moreover, the allegations against LWP Claims in the complaint are so meaningless and unintelligible as to make it impossible for LWP Claims to respond. The complaint also alleges claims for the purported violation of statutes for which private lawsuits are not permitted. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant LWP Claims respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As relevant to this motion, Defendant United States Fire Insurance was and is a registered Worker’s Compensation carrier, and Defendant LWP Claims Solutions, Inc. was and is a claims administration company. (Marcucci Decl. ¶10 and RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶ 22, 23].) LWP Claims wishes to emphasize that, to the extent any of the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint are recited as part of this summary, LWP Claims does not in any sense concede the veracity of those allegations, in whole or in part. A. Plaintiff’s Claims To the extent it may be understood, Plaintiff’s complaint appears to allege (as to LWP Claims) that President Obama and LWP Claims conspired to subject him to electronic medical scans to threaten and torture him, and refuse him medical treatment and government benefits. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶41 et.seq.].) To whit: “Defendant government & the insurance use NSA Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:692 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 4 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) Satellite to finding Plaintiff friends & relative by facebook wedding pictures at Lake Arrowhead resort hotel in California. Defendant action similar like ISIS because they search and finding people by online to become their informant and terrorist.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶44].) And this: [The] government and the insurance violating [sic] my rights by targeting Plaintiff with NSA Satellite for conspiracy & abuse power by enforcing employee facility imaging for consuming fraud. Plaintiff don't get any income from Government or Insurance but they always "steal" Plaintiff money by consuming fraud for CT, MRI and Bone scan. I believe Plaintiff need to get surgery on Upper Abdomen Internal Bleeding, right Thoracic Ribcage Internal Bleeding and left knee. Government and the insurance use NSA Satellite for eavesdropping Plaintiff appointment on cell phones and internet.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶51].) Plaintiff alleges that the government committed murder by poisoning his wife, causing her to suffer a miscarriage. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶46(a)].) Plaintiff also appears to allege that a San Diego attorney agreed to represent him in a dispute with LWP Claims and claims handler co-defendants LWP Claim, but that the attorney declined to do so because the 42nd President of the United States was the attorney’s friend. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶ 41, 49].) And the NSA tried to kill him by dropping a large rock on the highway in front of him, and having a Jamba Juice outlet put glass in his beverage. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶ 55, 59].) Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:693 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 5 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) B. Allegations Against LWP Claims 1. The San Bernardino County Superior Court Suit Against LWP Claims On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Superior Court lawsuit naming LWP Claims and LWP Claim Solutions as defendants. (Marcucci Decl. ¶2 and RJN 1.) The complaint alleged thirteen causes of action from including negligence, violation of human rights, attempted murder and “Abused NSA Program.” (RJN 1.) The complaint alleged that he was denied medical benefits “by consummating fraud” (RJN 1 [Complaint ¶14), was delayed for two hours by Canadian customs on his way to Vancouver, and again on his return, (RJN 1 [Complaint ¶¶ 16, 17), and that there was an attempt on his life by glass that was placed in a Jamba Juice store. (RJN 1 [Complaint ¶18].) He alleged incidents in which the local police department declined to investigate his fanciful accusations (RJN 1 [Complaint ¶¶ 28-34].) And he alleged that a series of medical providers and his insurer and claims handler denied him medical benefits to which he claimed to be entitled. (RJN 1 [Complaint passim].) The complaint prayed (inter alia) for an award of $10 Million in damages. After sustaining LWP Claims’ demurrer to the original complaint and granting Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint, the Court sustained LWP Claims’ demurrer to the amended complaint (Marcucci Decl. ¶3 and RJN 2) without further leave to amend on June 20, 2016. (Marcucci Decl. ¶4 and RJN 3.) 2. The First District Court Suit Naming LWP Claims The following day, on June 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint for damages in this Court. (RJN 4.) The complaint named two dozen defendants (including USFI and LWP Claims) and alleged causes of action for abuse of power, attempted murder and others previously raised in San Bernardino County. The complaint prayed (inter alia) for an award of $30 Billion in damages. (RJN 4 [Complaint p.56:9].) Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:694 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 6 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) Another department of this Court dismissed the lawsuit on June 24, 2017, finding the suit to be “Legally and/or factually patently frivolous” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1916. (RJN 5.) 3. The Riverside County Superior Court Suit Naming LWP Claims On June 30, 2016 (six days after the first District Court suit was dismissed), Plaintiff filed a complaint in Riverside County Superior Court. (RJN 6.) The complaint named USFI and LWP Claim Solutions as defendants, and alleged twenty (20) causes of action including attempted murder, criminal threats, “Abuse NSA Program,” and violation of the RICO statutes. (RJN 6.) The complaint prayed (inter alia) for an award of $10 Million in damages. (RJN 6 [Complaint p.35:7].) The Superior Court sustained LWP Claims’ demurrer to the complaint (Marcucci Decl. ¶8 and RHN 7) on September 27, 2016, entering judgment of dismissal thereafter. (Marcucci Decl. ¶9 and RJN 8.) 4. The Instant Lawsuit Plaintiff filed this action while LWP Claims’s demurrer to his Riverside County Superior Court complaint was pending. (RJN 9_.) The complaint names a total of twenty-nine (29) individuals and entities as defendants, beginning with President Barak Obama, and including the FBI, the NSA, a judge of the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board, five hospitals, six medical imaging companies, and two of his neighbors. The complaint prays (inter alia) for an award of $30 Billion. (RJN 9 [Complaint p.59:9].) Comparison of the allegations against LWP Claims in the two District Court complaints makes clear that the lawsuits seek relief on the same purported bases: Additionally, review of the Superior Court complaints from San Bernardino County (RJN 1) and Riverside County (RJN 6) reveals that the instant case raises claims that were raised, or could have been raised, in those actions, now finally determined Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:695 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 7 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) against Plaintiff. ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S LAWSUIT AS BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit against LWP Claims because it (to the extent Plaintiff’s complaint may be understood) it alleges violations of the same primary rights as those previously asserted in two Superior Court actions and a prior District Court action, all now gone to final judgment against Plaintiff. (RJN 1-6.) This Court may dismiss an action on Defendant’s motion where the Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which the Court may grant relief. (Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6).) In determining the propriety of dismissing an action under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will consider the allegations of the complaint at issue along with anything of which the Court may take judicial notice. (Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-706 (9th Cir.1998), superseded on unrelated grounds, 28 U.S.C. 1453.) A motion to dismiss brought on the ground of res judicata (or “claim preclusion” may properly be granted based on judicial notice of prior court proceedings. (Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 745-746, and fn.6, (9th Cir. 2006), citing Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. V. City of Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1998).) “Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits lawsuits on “‘any claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior action’” that have been finally determined against the plaintiff. (Stewart v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), quoting Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001), emphasis added in Stewart).) Such is the case as to Plaintiff’s claims herein, which have already been rejected both by two different Superior Courts and another department in this Court. Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:696 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 8 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) A. The Judgment Against Plaintiff In His Prior District Court Action Is Res Judicata To The Claims Herein The fact that Plaintiffs claims have already been dismissed in both California Superior Court (s) and this Court complicates the inquiry in this motion slightly. The standard for applying res judicata to the District Court judgment is different than for applying it to prior state court judgments. (Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir.2009).) In Federal Court, res judicata will be applied when there is 1) an identity of claims, 2) a final judgment on the merits, and 3) identity or privity of the parties. (Stewart v. United States Bancorp., 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002).) 1. Identity Of Claims Comparison of Plaintiff’s prior District Court lawsuit makes clear that the complaint alleges either the same claims or (as to certain theories) claims based on the same facts which could have been alleged before: Causes of Action against LWP Claims in Prior USDC Lawsuit (RJN4) Causes of Action against LWP Claims in this Action (RJN 9) Claim Theory Claim Theory 2nd “Abuse NSA Program” 2nd “Abuse NSA Program” 4th “Violation of Human Rights” 5th “Violation of Human Rights” 5th Federal Tort Claims Act 6th Federal Tort Claims Act 6th “Patients’ Rights Violation” 7th “Patients’ Rights Violation” 7th Attempted Murder 8th Attempted Murder 8th RICO 9th RICO 10th Civil Rights Violation 11th “Attempt and Conspiracy” 9th Freedom of Information Act Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:697 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 9 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) 10th “Conspiracy Against Rights” 11th EMTALA 12th EMTALA 12th FACE 14t “Attorney Misconduct” 15th “Doctor Misconduct” 14th “Abuse Worker’s Compensation System” 29th “Abuse Worker’s Compensation System” 15th “Criminal Threats” 17th “Criminal Threats” 16th “Great Bodily Injury/Harm” 16th “Great Bodily Injury/Harm” 17th “Color of Law Violations” 18th “Confidential Invasion” 20th “Confidential Invasion” 19th HIPAA 26th HIPAA 23rd Theft 31st Criminal Negligence 18th Criminal Negligence 32nd Grand Theft 19th Grand Theft 33rd “Unreasonable Denied/Delay” 21st Radical Terror Act 22nd “Torture Persecution” 27th Federal Wiretap Act 30th American with Disability Act 2. Final Judgment On The Merits Plaintiff’s prior District Court lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, as “Legally and/or factually patently frivolous.” (RJN 5.) “The phrase ‘final Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:698 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 10 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) judgment on the merits’ is often used interchangeably with ‘dismissal with prejudice.’” (Stewart, supra, 297 F.3d 953, 956.) Plaintiff did not appeal the judgment in the first District Court case, which issued June 24, 2016 and is now final. 3. Identity Or Privity Of Parties Plaintiff is the same in both District Court cases, and in both he named LWP Claims as a Defendant. In conclusion, under settled authority, the dismissal of Plaintiff’s prior District Court action is res judicata in this action, and bars his maintenance of the lawsuit, which should be dismissed. B. The Judgments Against Plaintiff In The Superior Court Actions Are Res Judicata To The Claims Herein As noted above, the Court’s inquiry regarding the preclusive effect of the two Superior Court judgments against Plaintiff and in favor of LWP Claims is slightly different. “Under 28 U.S.C. 1738, federal courts are required to give state court judgments the preclusive effects they would be given by another court of that state.” (Brodheim, supra, 584 U.S. at 1268.) “To determine whether two proceedings involve identical causes of action for purposes of claim preclusion, California court have ‘consistently applied the “primary rights” theory.’” (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 797-798 (2010), quoting Slater v. Blackwood, 15 Cal.3d 791, 795 (1975).) In this context, “cause of action [is] the right to obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory (common law or statutory) advanced.” (Boeken, supra, at 198.) 1. The San Bernardino Superior Court Suit Is Res Judicata To The Claims Herein On June 20, 2016, the San Bernardino Superior Court sustained LWP Claims’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint without further leave to amend. (RJN 2, 3.) The “primary rights” common to both the San Bernardino lawsuit and this action are self-apparent: Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:699 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 11 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) Causes of Action against LWP Claims in San Bernardino Lawsuit (RJN 1) Causes of Action against LWP Claims in this Action (RJN 9) Claim Theory Claim Theory 1st Negligence 18th “Criminal Negligence” 2nd “Fraud/Conspiracy” 11th “Attempt and Conspiracy” 3rd “Abuse of Power” 6th Federal Tort Claims Act 4th “Violation of Human Rights” 5th “Violation of Human Rights” 5th “Failure to Investigate” See ¶59. 6th “Intentional Torts” Passim 7th Attempted Fraud 11th “Attempt and Conspiracy” 8th Attempted Murder 8th Attempted Murder 9th “Unreasonably Denied” See ¶¶ 246, 253, 344, 350 10th “Threatening” 17th “Criminal Threats” 11th “Unreasonable Delay” See ¶¶ 246, 253, 344, 350 12th “Abused NSA Program” 2nd “Abuse NSA Program” 13th “Use of Extreme Tactics ...” 22nd Torture/Persecution 14th “Abused Workers Compensation System 29 “Abuse Worker’s Comp System” Moreover, if one actually attempts to read the pleadings, the same conduct of which Plaintiff claims to have been aggrieved in the San Bernardino lawsuit is alleged as the basis for recovery in this action – attempted murder by having a big rock fall on a highway and by having glass placed in a Jamba Juice drink (RJN 1 [Complaint ¶¶ 62, 63]; compare RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶ 55, 59]) and failure to provide medical benefits to which Plaintiff believed himself entitled. Finally, the order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend was a final Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:700 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 12 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) judgment on the merits, to which a California court would give res judicata effect. (In re: Cole’s Check Service, Inc., 215 Cal.App.2d 332, 337-338 (1963), citing Keidatz v. Albany, 39 Cal.2d 826, 828 (1952).) The judgment (now final) in the San Bernardino Superior Court action is therefore res judicata as to the claims herein, an additional and separately sufficient basis upon which the Court should order Plaintiff’s lawsuit dismissed. 2. The Riverside County Superior Court Judgment Is Res Judicata To Plaintiff’s Suit Herein The same holds true for the final judgment against Plaintiff in his lawsuit in Riverside County, in which judgment was entered against Plaintiff on October 14, 2016. (RJN 8.). The same finality and privity of parties pertains, and the same commonality of primary rights is seen: Causes of Action against LWP Claims in Riverside Lawsuit (RJN 6) Causes of Action against LWP Claims in this Action (RJN 9) Claim Theory Claim Theory 1st “Unreasonable Denied” See ¶¶ 246, 253, 344, 350 2nd “Unreasonable Delay” See ¶¶ 246, 253, 344, 350 3rd “Failure to Investigate” See ¶59. 4th “Use of Extreme Tactics” 22nd Torture Persecution 5th “Intentional Torts” Passim 6th “Great Bodily Injury/Harm” 16th “Great Bodily Injury/Harm” 7th “Attempt/Conspiracy” 11th “Attempt and Conspiracy” 8th Attempted Fraud 11th “Attempt and Conspiracy” 9th Attempted Murder 8th Attempted Murder 10th Criminal Negligence 18th Criminal Negligence 11th Criminal Threats 17h Criminal Threats Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:701 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 13 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) 12th Theft 19th Theft 13th HIPAA Violation 26th HIPAA Violations 14th “Patient’s Rights Violation” 7th “Patient’s Rights Violation” 15th Harassing 28th Harassing 16th Abuse Power 1st,3rd Abuse of Power 17th Abuse NSA Program 2nd Abuse NSA Program 18th RICO 9th RICO 19th “Human Rights Violation” 5th “Violation of Human Rights” 20th “Abuse Worker’s Compensation System” 29th “Abuse Worker’s Compensation System” As with the San Bernardino lawsuit, the Riverside lawsuit concerned the same “primary rights” as those asserted herein, and a California court would afford it the same res judicata effect. C. Conclusion Regarding Application Of Res Judicata Herein This is Plaintiff’s fourth lawsuit naming USFI and LWP Claims. The instant lawsuit names dozens (literally) of defendants including the President of the United States, and alleges thirty (30) causes of action. The charging allegations against LWP Claims are the same throughout – LWP Claims somehow colluded with the Federal government to deny Plaintiff medical benefits to which he claims to be entitled, in furtherance of which they engaged in misconduct including electronic surveillance and attempted murder by dropping a “big rock” on the highway and putting glass in a Jamba Juice drink. The Court should dismiss this lawsuit. Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:702 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 14 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) II. EVEN IF THE INSTANT COMPLAINT IS EXAMINED SEPARATELY, FROM ITS PREDECESSORS, THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO PLEAD ANY VIABLE CLAIMS AGAINST LWP CLAIMS A. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Frivolous Lawsuit Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) This Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s lawsuit against LWP Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 because the action is fully as “legally and/or factually patently frivolous” as was Plaintiff’s prior District Court lawsuit, dismissed by another department in this Court. The Supreme Court has observed that United States Code expressly empowers the Court to dismiss an action where the claims describe “fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district court judges are all too familiar.” (Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); see alsi Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) [factual allegations are “clearly baseless” when they “rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible...”].) Examining Plaintiff’s most recent complaint individually is a profound waste of time and resources for both the Court and for counsel for the twenty-nine (29) defendants named herein. However, doing so reveals that, even if this was Plaintiff’s first lawsuit against LWP Claims, rather than his fourth, the complaint would still fail to state any claim against LWP Claims as to which this Court could grant relief. Plaintiff’s lurid and fanciful charging allegations against LWP Claims simply cannot be credited as stating a claim:  Plaintiff alleges that, “the insurance violated Plaintiff rights by conspiring to destroys Plaintiff health, financial and life for helping to save radical terrorist insurance LWP’s and USFI.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶122].)  Plaintiff alleges that LWP Claims, “repeatedly [ ] blocking access to the Justice and the Court. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶133].)  Plaintiff alleges that, “Defendant government, insurance and imaging scan violated Plaintiff rights by knowingly to attempt intentional fraud for CT Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:703 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 15 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) scan, MRI scan and Bone scan.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶143].)  Plaintiff alleges that, “Defendant LWP & USFI violated Plaintiff rights by using radicals act to pay "Predator Power" for attempted murder and multiple other criminal act, rather than to help Plaintiff for treatment.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶152].)  Plaintiff alleges that, “Defendant govermnent [sic] and the insurance violated Plaintiff rights by conspiring to repeatedly attempts and causing Plaintiff wife got miscarriage because unlawful act and gross negligence.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶154].)  Plaintiff alleges that, “Defendant government and the insurance violated My rights under Title VII U.S.C. § 702 by using NSA Satellite Surveillance for conspiracy, attempted murder, fraud, harassing and other crime.” (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶161].) One final notice bears emphasis. For purposes of Section 1915, a complaint is frivolous and/or malicious where, as here, it merely attempts re- litigation of virtually identical causes of action. (Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir.1988), citing Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368, Ballentine v. Craford, 563 F.Supp.627, 629 (N.D.Ind.1983) and Hill v. Estelle, 423 F.Supp. 690, 694 (S.D.Tex1976).) This rule is not harsh – it is part and parcel of the principle of res judicata, one of the foundations of jurisprudence, discussed above. (Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Systems, 430 F.3d 985, 987 et.seq. (9th Cir.2005).) And the review of the causes of action previously alleged and finally adjudicated against Plaintiff establishes that the current allegations against LWP Claims are “legally and/or factually patently frivolous,” warranting dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915. B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Barred By The Exclusive Remedy Provisions Of Worker’s Compensation Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state any causes of action as to which the Court may grant relief because they all arise from the purported wrongful denial of Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:704 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 16 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) medical and other Worker’s Compensation benefits, and no private cause of action will lie against a Worker’s Compensation insurer administrator for such claims. Plaintiff alleges twenty-two (22) of the thirty (30) causes of action against LWP Claims, and all of them incorporate Plaintiff’s aggrieve-ment over denial of Worker’s Compensation benefits. California Labor Code § 3602(a) provides: “Where the conditions of compensation set forth in [Labor Code] Section 3600 concur, the right to recover compensation is ... the sole and exclusive remedy of the employee or his or her dependents against the employer". Moreover, insurance carriers and claims administrators are not persons other than the employer, but rather stand in the employer's shoes, and may invoke the exclusivity defense.” (Cal.Labor Code §3602(a).) "'Employer' includes insurer as defined in this division"; Everfield v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 115 Cal.App.3d 15, 18 (1981); Droz v. Pacific National Ins. Co. 138 Cal.App.3d 181, 183 (1982); Cervantes v. Great American Ins. Co., 140 Cal.App.3d 763, 767 (1983).) Thus, no private cause of action may be asserted against an Worker’s Compensation insurer or claims administrator (Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 1, 12 (1989) [“...we hold that [Labor Code] sections 3602, 5300 and 5814 create a statutory scheme that preempts private causes of action by injured employees against the independent insurance claims administrators”]; Phillips v. Crawford & Co., 202 Cal.App.3d 383, 388 (1988); Cont'l Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 190 Cal. App. 3d 156, 162 (1987).) Specifically, where an action arises from denial or delay in provision of Worker’s Compensation medical and other benefits, the exclusive remedy lies with the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board. (Phillips, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 388 All of the causes of action pleaded against LWP Claims in this action incorporate allegations about purported wrongful denial of benefits. Even the most Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:705 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 17 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) lurid of the allegations (attempted murder, torture etc.) are tied to the benefits determination – the Obama Administration and NSA tried to kill Plaintiff to prevent him receiving the benefits. It is settled that claims based on denial of Worker’s Compensation benefits, including those pleaded in intentional tort, are barred by Section 3602 regardless of how pleaded. (Garza v. City of Tulare, 53 Fed.Appx. 430, 431 (9th Cir.2002), citing Cole v. Fire Oaks Fire Protection Dist., 43 Cal.3d 148, 159-160 (1987).) The complaint eliminates any question that the Worker’s Compensation determination is at the heart of Plaintiff-s claims: the complaint itself names both the Worker’s Compensation Board and a judge who served on the appeals panel (Judge Catherine Coutts) as defendants. (RJN 9 [Complaint ¶¶ 18, 20.) It appears from the allegations of the complaint that Plaintiff did appeal the determination(s) of his Worker’s Compensation insurer (LWP Claims) and claim administrator (LWP Claims), and was unsuccessful. The law does not permit him to try to make good those failed claims (much less to the tune of $30 Billion) by pursuant private causes of action in District Court. III. NO LEAVE TO AMEND IS WARRANTED IN THIS CASE Defendant LWP Claims respectfully submits that this action presents the rare circumstance were an initial complaint should be dismissed without giving Plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint. LWP Claims is mindful of the general policy, embodied in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a), that leave to amend should be freely granted “when justice so requires,” and that a pro se litigant’s pleading must be read more liberally than pleadings drafted by counsel. (Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972).) However, Plaintiff’s complaint in this action (his fourth) compels a “reality check” before further leave to amend is granted. Plaintiff is claiming that his Worker’s Compensation carrier and claims Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:706 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n L o s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4837-7697-5165.1 - 18 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) administrator conspired with President Obama to murder him by dropping a large rock onto the highway in front of him, and by placing glass in a fruit drink. The complaint does not allege potentially valid claims badly or incompletely – it prays for an award of $30 Billion in damages based on fanciful and nonsensical claims that should occupy no further time or resources from the Court, or from defendant herein. The Court is urged not to allow Plaintiff to amend his complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY respectfully requests that this Court dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD. Respectfully Submitted: Dated: December 8, 2016 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY By: /s/ German A. Marcucci GERMAN A. MARCUCCI TERRY P. ANASTASSIOU Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, erroneously sued as “US Fire Insurance, Ca”; LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, erroneously sued as “LWP Claim Solutions, Sacramento, CA”; and ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY, erroneously sued as “Defendant Attorney RMKB, CA Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:707 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n Lo s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4817-9621-9709.1 -1- [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT - SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) GERMAN A. MARCUCCI, State Bar No. 222237 TERRY ANASTASSIOU, State Bar No. 157996 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1619 Telephone: (213) 312-2000 Facsimile: (213) 312-2001 Email: german.marcucci@rmkb.com terry.anastassiou@rmkb.com Attorneys for Defendants UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, erroneously sued as “US Fire Insurance, Ca”; LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, erroneously sued as “LWP Claim Solutions, Sacramento, CA”; and ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY, erroneously sued as “Defendant Attorney RMKB, CA” UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION – SANTA ANA STEVANUS EDWARDS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENT OBAMA, et.al. Defendants. Case No. SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6), 12(e) and 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) Date: January 23, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: 10C Honorable James V. Selna, U.S.D.J. This Court having considered Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD’S Complaint, GRANTS said motion and hereby orders Plaintiff STEVANUS EDWARD’S Complaint dismissed as against Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS, with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS shall recover all costs of suit herein incurred. Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:708 R o p e rs M a je sk i K o h n & B e n tl e y A P ro fe ss io n a l C o rp o ra ti o n Lo s A n g e le s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4817-9621-9709.1 - 2 - [PROPOSED] ORDER ON DEFENDANT LWP CLAIM SOLUTIONS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT SA CV 16 01677 JVS (KES) IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ____________________ Hon. James V. Selna United States District Judge Case 8:16-cv-01677-JVS-KES Document 91-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:709