Does the Opposing Party the Governmental Entity the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) have a right to refuse to transfer the record that is related to DIR's processes of investigation of my both retaliation and unlawful termination claim and my wage claim to the Office of the Administrative Hearings of the California Department of General Services at my request pursuant to the California Administrative Procedure Act or Government Code a Sections 11370.5(a) and 11500 et. seq.?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. _ 1) Does the Opposing Party the Governmental Entity the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) have a right to refuse to transfer the record that is related to DIR’s processes of investigation of my both retaliation and unlawful termination claim and my wage claim to the Office of the Administrative Hearings of the California Department of General Services at my request pursuant to the California Administrative Procedure Act or Government Code a Sections 11370.5(a) and 11500 et. seq.? | 2) If there are two actions that are pending in both the District Court and the State Court and that include the same Parties, the same events, and the same causes of action, shall the State Court evaluate the facts and the pieces of evidence that are presented from the District Court and from the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit? 3) If the Opposing Party the Governmental Entity the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) exhibits clear inconsistencies and discrepancies during the litigations at both the District and the State Court, if DIR doesn’t mention the key piece of evidence (the alleged September 4, 2013 email of Ms. Llittlepage) during the litigation at the District Court, if DIR opposes my attempt to introduce this September 4, 2013 Littlepage’s email to the 9" Circuit, and if at the same time DIR uses the same September 4, 2013 Littlepage’s email as a basis for DIR’s anti-SLAPP Motion and the Demurrer Page 2 of 59 at the State Court, shall the State Court stay the action until a full investigation of this email and until a full resolution of the action at the Federal Court? 4) If the Opposing Party the Governmental Entity the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) uses a key piece of evidence (the alleged September 4, 2013 email of Littlepage) as a justification for DIR’s anti-SLAPP Motion ad a Demurrer, and if Plaintiff suspects that a key piece of evidence (the alleged September 4, 2013 email of Ms. Littlepage) that DIR used could be fabricated, and if a Plaintiff explains to the State Court that the September 4, 2013 Littlepage’s email could be fabricated, and if the Plaintiff asks the State Court to stay the action until a resolution of the Federal action, does the State Court have a right to refuse to stay the action? 5) If Plaintiff's former employer Alameda Health System (AHS) doesn’t claim during the litigation at the District Court that Plaintiff was fired for medical negligence towards the patient, but if AHS suddenly claims during the litigation at the 9” Circuit that Plaintiff was fired for poor professional performance, and if AHS refuses to give both the explanations and the evidence regarding the allegation of the poor professional performance, and if the Plaintiff notifies the State Court that AHS suddenly made an allegation about the poor professional performance at the 9"" Circuit, and if the Plaintiff | asks the State Court to stay the action until a full resolution of the allegation about the poor professional performance at the 9" Circuit, can the State Court refuse to stay the action? Page 3 of 59 6) Does a Plaintiff necessarily need to file a Petition for Coordination of the cases that are pending at the District Court and the State Court in order to obtain a stay of the action at the State Court? Page 4 of 59 A LIST OF ALL