Graham v. Cortines CA2/8

Filed 5/15/14 Graham v. Cortines CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

SCOT GRAHAM, B248121

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC488823) v.

RAMON C. CORTINES, as Superintendent, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William F. Fahey, Judge. Affirmed.

Peter Law Group and Arnold Peter for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt, Linda Miller Savitt, Linda B. Hurevitz and Christine T. Hoeffner, for Defendant and Respondent.

__________________________

Plaintiff Scot Graham appeals from the summary judgment entered for defendant Ramon Cortines in this action for sexual battery and assault. We affirm because Graham did not provide a record sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

Scot Graham sued Ramon Cortines, who was then superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, for sexual battery and other causes of action stemming from an incident that took place when Graham spent the weekend alone with Cortines at Cortines’s ranch in the Sierras. Graham, who worked for the District in a managerial capacity, alleged four times in his verified complaint that Cortines had been acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident.2 Because Graham alleged that Cortines had been acting in the course and scope of his employment, he was required to have first filed a claim against the District pursuant to the Government Tort Claims Act. (Gov. Code, § 950.2; Briggs v. Lawrence (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 605, 613.) It is undisputed that Graham never did so, and Cortines moved for summary judgment on that ground, contending that Graham was bound by the judicial admission in his verified complaint that Cortines had been acting in the course and scope of his employment. Graham brought, and the trial court denied, an ex parte motion for leave to file an amended complaint before the hearing on the summary