Whether California Code of Civil Procedure 1714.10 preempts or violates federal civil rights statutes and constitutional protections when applied to Section 1983 claims

1. Can a state require under CCP 1714.10 a Pre-Filing in Conspiracy to sue an Attorney under 42 USC 1983 or is it a violation of the Preemption or Supremacy law or 14th Amendment preempt the Pre-filing requirement in parallel to the current standin g for the same reasons that a Gov Tort Claims Act does not apply? Is the state law California Code of Procedures 1714.10 not applicable to a section 1983? 2. Can California reverse precedent and determine that a Government Tort Act is Required to be filed for a 42 USC Section 1983 personal suit? 3. Does a Plaintiff have a right to Tolling or estoppel on Decision Maker Plaintiffs of several filed claims under California Government Claims Tort acts which some included names on the Gov tort act claims for on many causes of action including a 42 US Section 1983 and a CCP 1714.10 when there are writ of Mandate case and Public Employment Relation Board Retaliation cases were against the Employer for the same issues? [Opinion p. 12] 4. Do the several filed Government Tort Claims act allow tolling or estoppel for other cases running on employer or is it Required to file within six months the tort claims on defendants regardless if other cases are running? 5. Can a Ruling be made that the decision maker Employee of Employer is not liable because they cannot conspire with themselves or the employer in a 42 US section 1983 for conspiring in a claimed cause of preventing due process and intent to harm for a harassing letter? II 6. Should the court be Required to explain in details why her causes do not meet a minimum standard for causes on Degendent Carreon and Rittling under CCP 1714.10 and or pleading standards for causes in state court on Rittling and or at least Section 1983 and thus would deny plaintiff the right to due process and trial? 7. Can there be a Benefit under the Exception to the pre-filing Motion for conspiracy requirement under CCP 1714.10 to sue an attorney including 1. having the benefit of the responsibility of guiding and conspiring with the Employer for years before and during a writ of mandate suit for a misclassification suit that the plaintiff was determined to be misclassified and 2.approving of a harassing letter that was intended to harm plaintiff 3. Sending the Plaintiff letters not part of the underlying misclassification case but a response to the whistleblowing of civil rights of students? 8. Are there exceptions to a filing requirement under CCP 1714.10 on an attorney who was guiding the Decision Maker employee and Employer for causes of actions, of a formal written responses to plaintiff's Whistleblowing complaints, that are claimed are not Part of the underlying case, and where plaintiff claims are intended to conceal, intentionally fraudulent, and emotionally harm plaintiff with a intentionally harassing letter? 9. For actions in #8 above, should they be claimed to be causes for an attempt to contact or compromise a claim or can they Stand on their own or additionally stand on their own as separate claims that are claimed not to be from an attempt to contest claims bv Wu for a Response Letters to Whistleblowing of civil rights, Harassing Letters to other coworkers and Wu, and a Letter Wu claims was ment to harm Wu thus Can they fall under CCP i7i4.io.a ? ccp (a) No cause of action against an attorney ill for a civil conspiracy with his or her client arising from any attempt to contest or compromise a claim or dispute.. 10. Should Wu’s Motion for a CCP 1714.10 be granted based on a threshold of “reasonable ” to show probable cause in causes of action and would that be for all causes of action? Are Wu’s claims of facts and events enough to meet reasonable causes of action in a CCP 1714.10? Under CCP 1714.10 (a). reasonable probability that the party will prevail in the action 11. Can rights to sue for Whistleblowing of government corruption under California Education Code 44110-44114 be ignored and or denied at all levels of courts? Is there an overall corr