Khan v. State of California CA5

Filed 8/27/24 Khan v. State of California CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MOBARZA KHAN, F083096 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. BCV-20-102645) v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OPINION Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Lampe, Judge. Mobarza Khan, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Jodi L. Cleesattle, Catherine Woodbridge, and Andrew F. Adams, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiff and appellant Mobarza Khan sued respondent and defendant State of California, but apparently failed to properly comply with the government claims requirements imposed by statute. The court sustained a demurrer on that ground, and we affirm.

FACTS In an amended complaint filed March 12, 2021, plaintiff sued defendant, checking the boxes on Judicial Council Form PLD-PI-001 indicating she was asserting claims for general negligence, and intentional tort. She also wrote that she had causes of action for “gross breach of duty, undue influence & conflict of interest, right to life, false imprisonment and isolation, assault and battery, intentional affliction [sic] of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, [and] violation of civil rights.” The complaint did not have substantive allegations to support these claims, though it does mention that plaintiff “fear[s]” for her life “from Kamala Harris and her allies like Nancy….” The complaint acknowledge that plaintiff was required to comply with a claims statute and alleges she did so. On April 12, 2021, defendant filed a demurrer on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to file a government claim before initiating the civil lawsuit. Defendant sought and obtained judicial notice of a government claim filed by plaintiff, and a responsive letter from the Department of General Services (DGS) dated November 18, 2020. The letter from DGS notified plaintiff that her claim was not accompanied by the requisite $25 fee (or a fee waiver request). In her opposition, plaintiff claimed she paid the fee and accused the state government of “manipulat[ing] facts to protect Office of AG and Kamala’s allies.” Plaintiff claimed she refiled the government claim form with the $25 fee dated March 12, 2021. On May 17, 2021, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend on the grounds plaintiff failed to comply with the government claims requirements. Plaintiff appeals. DISCUSSION “ ‘ “The purpose of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of a complaint by raising questions of law.” ’ [Citation.] ‘We review an order sustaining a demurrer de novo,