Filed: May 15, 2014
Latest Update: May 15, 2014
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. RUBIN, J. Plaintiff Scot Graham appeals from the summary judgment entered for defendant Ramon Cortines in this action for sexual battery and assault. We
Summary: NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. RUBIN, J. Plaintiff Scot Graham appeals from the summary judgment entered for defendant Ramon Cortines in this action for sexual battery and assault. We ..
More
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
RUBIN, J.
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 judgment motion.3 The trial court granted the summary judgment motion and entered judgment for Cortines.
DISCUSSION
Because judgments are presumed to be correct and prejudicial error must be shown, an appellant bears the burden of providing an adequate record sufficient to permit meaningful review. If he does not, then we must affirm the judgment. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 187.)
As mentioned in footnote 1, ante, Graham's record designation was limited to the minute order denying his ex parte motion for leave to amend, and the judgment for Cortines. Missing are the complaint, the summary judgment points and authorities and statements of separate undisputed and disputed facts, any declarations or other evidence submitted by the parties in connection with that motion, a proposed amended pleading, or a transcript of the summary judgment hearing.4 On this record we are unable to conduct a meaningful appellate review and we therefore affirm the judgment.5
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover his costs on appeal.
BIGELOW, P. J. and KUSSMAN, J.,* concurs.
