Redmayne-Titley

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, "we determine de novo whether an

issue of material fact exists and whether the moving party was entitled to summary

judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] In other words, we must assume the role of the

trial court and reassess the merits of the motion. [Citation.] In doing so, we will consider

only the facts properly before the trial court at the time it ruled on the motion." (Brantley

v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1601.) We do not decide the merits of the issues,

but limit our review to "determining if 'there is evidence requiring the fact-weighing

procedures of a trial.' " (Pensinger v. Bowsmith, Inc. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 709, 717.)

II. Compliance with the Tort Claims Act

Redmayne-Titley conceded that he did not present a claim to the County under the

Tort Claims Act, but argues he was not required to do so because he sued Palumbo

individually and she acted outside the course and scope of her employment.

With certain exceptions not applicable here, one who sues a public employee on the

basis of acts or omissions in the scope of the employee's employment must…