Yes, it is a state case, but if it were to be successful, California would doubtless appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court. When a state supreme court decision of ineligibility for the office of the governor ocurred, the governor’s acts were voided. despite the doctrine. In this instance, the U.S. Supreme Court may indeed invoke the de facto doctrine, but due to other peculiarities invovlving the fraud involved by the conspiracy and culpabioity of the Democrat Party, the Supreme Court may well find it necessary to treat this as an illegal government as occurred with the Confederate States of America and the voiding of its acts due to lack of authority. Although unlikely to proceed to a conclusion, history will be made, jurisprudence and otherwise, in any event.
Successful in what? It is a state case asking California ballot officials to take Obama (and Feinstein!) off the November 2012 California ballot. That election already happened, so the court cannot do anything for Orly even if she won, making the case moot.
And aside from all of that, that the case was bounced from the trial court because Orly never bothered to serve the defendants with process, meaning the lawsuit never started.
If Orly Taitz were being paid by Obama to set bad precedents for any eligibility challenges, what would she do differently from what she is doing?