Court Opinion

ID: 9389540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:02:48.185167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.356189
License: Public Domain

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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                                              I
                                          FACTS
              On June 6, 2017, McKenzie filed an application for adjudication of claim
before the Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board (the Board) for trauma injuries
allegedly sustained between November 2014 and November 2015. Her employer at that
time was San Joaquin College in Hesperia. The basis of her alleged trauma was the
purported discovery that the CEO of the college was an impostor whose true identity was
deceased actor Chris Farley, and another member of the administration was mixed
martial arts fighter Chuck Liddell. That case settled for $50,000, and McKenzie signed
the settlement documents in June 2018.
              In December 2018, McKenzie filed a petition for reconsideration, which
was construed as a petition to set aside the settlement. The matter was referred back to an

                                              2
administrative law judge to determine whether good cause existed to set aside the
settlement. At a hearing in July 2019, McKenzie argued the settlement was procured by
fraud because neither her former attorney nor defense counsel were who they purported
to be. McKenzie contended that her former attorney was Kim Kardashian and defense
counsel was Ricki Lake based on the theory of “ear biometrics.” (See McKenzie v. Alta
Resources Corp. (Apr. 25, 2023, G061292) [nonpub. opn.].) The alleged fraud was that
neither attorney was actually an attorney, therefore the settlement was procured by fraud.
The administrative law judge rejected McKenzie’s claims. McKenzie’s husband, who
had made the determination about the purported impersonations, had no credentials as an
expert in forensic identification, and his findings were conjecture. The attorneys testified
they were who they claimed to be and had been fingerprinted by the State Bar. In sum,
the administrative law judge determined there had been no fraud and no cause to set aside
the settlement.
              In October 2020, McKenzie filed a new application for workers’
compensation benefits against her new employer, Alta Resources Corporation (Alta).
(See McKenzie v. Alta Resources Corp., supra, G061292.) The description of the injury
stated: “Expert discovered via ‘Auricular Anthropometric Analysis’ that ‘Diana Floyd’
[McKenzie’s supervisor] played the Hollywood actress ‘Jodi [sic] Foster’ and Porn-Star
‘Kali Kala Lina’ thus misrepresenting []” herself and signing my Termination Letter in
fraud. She also claimed other employees “with the higher echelons” of Alta were also
Hollywood actors misrepresenting themselves. As a result of this alleged discovery,
McKenzie claimed she was experiencing severe anxiety, severe emotional distress, and
physical stress.
              McKenzie’s workers’ compensation case was set for trial before Judge
Cyprien, the administrative law judge. The matter was continued to October 11, 2021,
when the parties were set to appear electronically. On October 11, McKenzie did not
appear. Instead, McKenzie wrote a letter to the Board stating that her husband had

                                             3
discovered via “Auricular Anthropometry” that Judge Cyprien “is not who he claims to
be.” She stated he “is impersonating a State Judge” and that accordingly, she could not
have a fair trial. She demanded a trial with a “‘Lawful’ State Judge whose identity can be
properly authenticated.”
              Judge Cyprien issued a notice of intent to dismiss due to McKenzie’s
failure to appear, and when she did not respond, dismissed the case entirely on December
1, 2021. McKenzie acknowledges receipt of both documents, although she claimed they
were “invalid” due to their lack of “official signatures.”
              Rather than appealing through the Board, McKenzie then filed the instant
case in the superior court on March 9, 2022. She alleged claims for professional
negligence, concealment fraud, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The named defendants were the State of California and
Judge Cyprien.
              Among other things, the complaint alleged that Governor Gavin Newsom
was actually actor Bradley Cooper and Judge Cyprien was actually “the actor/persona
known as ‘Sean Gascoine’ aka ‘Sean Keith’ son of the allegedly deceased English
actress/persona known as ‘Jill Gascoine’ and English actor ‘Alfred Molina.’” All of her
purported claims were essentially centered around the allegations that Judge Cyprien was
an imposter and assisted or conspired with other imposters.
              Defendants demurred to the complaint, requesting the demurrer be
sustained without leave to amend. Among other things, defendants argued that
McKenzie’s claims were barred due to workers’ compensation exclusivity, the Board’s
immunity, and judicial immunity. They also argued McKenzie had failed to state a cause
of action, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Board, and failed to
file a timely government claim. In response, McKenzie contended her complaint stated a
sufficient cause of action because Judge Cyprien was an imposter and not a real judge.
She stated Judge Cyprien is “a fictional persona & does not exist as a living man.”

                                              4
              On May 13, 2022, the trial court sustained the demurrer without further
leave to amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. The minute order noted there
was a discussion on the record, but McKenzie did not include a reporter’s transcript in the
record on appeal. The clerk’s certificate of mailing/electronic service was dated May 18,
2022, and signed by the deputy clerk. McKenzie’s notice of appeal was filed on July 12,
2022.

                                              II
                                       DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
              “In our de novo review of an order sustaining a demurrer, we assume the
truth of all facts properly pleaded in the complaint or reasonably inferred from the
pleading, but not mere contentions, deductions, or conclusions of law. [Citation.] We
then determine if those facts are sufficient, as a matter of law, to state a cause of action
under any legal theory.” (Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214
Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052.) “In order to prevail on appeal from an order sustaining a
demurrer, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error. Specifically, the appellant
must show that the facts pleaded are sufficient to establish every element of a cause of
action and overcome all legal grounds on which the trial court sustained the demurrer.
[Citation.] We will affirm the ruling if there is any ground on which the demurrer could
have been properly sustained.” (Ibid.)

                                               5
Notice of Entry of Judgment
                                                                                      1
               McKenzie’s first argument is that the notice of entry of judgment was
defective, which she argues in the context of the deadline to file an appeal. That issue
was not raised by defendants and does not appear to be at issue in the case. Her notice of
appeal was filed on July 12, 2022, within 60 days of the date the case was dismissed. We
see no need to consider this point further.

Judge Cyprien, Judicial Immunity, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction
               The entirety of McKenzie’s next argument is that Judge Cyprien is not a
real judge, but an impersonator. This argument relies entirely on McKenzie’s own
unsworn statements in documents she filed below, including her opposition to the
demurrer, photographs with names on them that she apparently prepared, only two of
which purport to be Judge Cyprien, an article from a journal about fingerprint alteration,
a document from the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding
color photo specifications, an article from a web site about ear analysis, and an article
about forensic biometrics.
               There is no indication in the record that any of these documents were
judicially noticed or accepted into evidence, nor should they have been in the context of a
demurrer. “A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations in
a complaint.” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 225, italics added.)
None of the documents to which McKenzie cites address the complaint’s legal
sufficiency, and while “[w]e assume the truth of the properly pleaded factual allegations
. . .” (ibid), neither the trial court nor this court “assume the truth of ‘contentions,
deductions, or conclusions of fact or law.’” (Baldwin v. AAA Northern California,

1
 To be precise, there was no entry of judgment in this case. The court dismissed the case
after sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and that was the order that was
mailed by the clerk.

                                                6
Nevada & Utah Ins. Exchange (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 545, 550.) Accordingly, the court
was not required to accept the conclusions of McKenzie’s husband. The claims regarding
imposters are mere conclusions and contentions, not allegations of fact, and are properly
disregarded in determining whether the complaint properly pleads all the necessary
elements of each cause of action alleged.
              Without the contentions and conclusions regarding Judge Cyprien as an
imposter, McKenzie’s remaining arguments must fall. Her claim that defendants are not
entitled to judicial immunity rests entirely on the conclusion that Judge Cyprien “is not a
judicial officer.” Her rather tangled argument about the state court’s lack of jurisdiction
in a workers’ compensation matter also depends on the conclusion that Judge Cyprien “is
not a de jure judge and is the Hollywood actor/persona known as ‘Sean Gascoine’ aka
‘Sean Keith.’”

Defendants’ Arguments
              Defendants offered four grounds for sustaining McKenzie’s demurrer, any
one of which alone was sufficient to warrant sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the
case. We find their argument regarding workers’ compensation exclusivity dispositive.
              The Board has exclusive original jurisdiction over all workers’
compensation claims and any incidental right or liability. (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 4;
Lab. Code, § 5300.) Labor Code section 5955 states: “No court of this state, except the
Supreme Court and the courts of appeal to the extent herein specified, has jurisdiction to
review, reverse, correct, or annul any order, rule, decision, or award of the appeals board,
or to suspend or delay the operation or execution thereof, or to restrain, enjoin, or
interfere with the appeals board in the performance of its duties, but a writ of mandate
shall lie from the Supreme Court or a court of appeal in all proper cases.”
              The wrongful acts McKenzie alleged in her complaint all relate directly to
the performance of duties inside the context of the workers’ compensation system. The

                                              7
alleged professional malpractice, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and intentional
                               2
infliction of emotional distress all arise directly from the context of a worker’s
compensation claim. Accordingly, the superior court had no jurisdiction to hear any of
McKenzie’s claims. To do so would directly “interfere” within the meaning of Labor
Code section 5955.

                                             III
                                      DISPOSITION
              The dismissal without prejudice is affirmed. In the interests of justice, each
party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

                                                   MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

O’LEARY, P. J.

DELANEY, J.

2
 If these claims did not arise from a workers’ compensation case, each cause of action
would have its own problems, which we need not discuss further.

                                              8