Graham
Graham v. Cortines CA2/8
Opinion
Opinion
Rubin, J.
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