McKenzie v. Department of Industrial Relations, etc. CA4/3

Filed 4/25/23 McKenzie v. Department of Industrial Relations, etc. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ADAMINA MCKENZIE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G061562

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022-01248965)

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL OPI NION RELATIONS, DIVISION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed. Adamina McKenzie, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation, Legal Unit, Ted E. Richards and Winslow F. West for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiff Adamina McKenzie filed a workers’ compensation claim after she was terminated from her employment. She declined to appear at her hearing, asserting the administrative law judge, the Honorable John Charles Cyprien, was an imposter and not a legitimate judge. After her failure to appear resulted in the dismissal of her case, she filed the instant lawsuit against defendants the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers’ Compensation, the State of California and Judge Cyprien (collectively defendants) alleging numerous causes of action. Defendants filed a demurrer, arguing numerous grounds, including workers’ compensation exclusivity, judicial immunity, and the failure to state a claim. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal, McKenzie repeats her argument that Judge Cyprien is not a legitimate judge and for that reason, none of the reasons raised below in support of the demurrer were valid. We find that her contentions lack merit, and accordingly, we affirm the dismissal with prejudice.