\DooqoxUI-thH Ix.) r?tJARNOLD P. PETER (SBN: 120091) apeter@peterlawgroup.com MARCUS J. LEE (SBN: 281886) mlee@peterlawgroup.com PETER LAW GROUP 9100 Wilshire BlVd., Suite 880W Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 277-0010 Facsimile: (310) 432?0599 Attorneys for Plainti? SCOT GRAHAM SCOT GRAHAM, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, a school district duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California; and DOES 1 through 100. Defendants. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES Los Ange?9 APR 11? 2013 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5 0 5 6 7 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) SEXUAL . (2) FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT (3) RETALIATION (4) AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF THE FEHA- Cal. Lab. Code 7287.7; (5) SEXUAL (6) GENDER (7) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL (8) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL (9) ART 1 8 OF CALIFORNIA g; (10) VIOLATION OF PRIVACY ART 1 1 Of? CALIFORNIA DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE 333 GEAIB . ill 3 1 13!] I33- L313 DI 5 Superior Cour BLDG i? John A Clarke utive Of?ceg?p By SHA SLEY PD l.!j ALE..- f! 4 :Ierk. utT :#j30f?31 ?Lu. 00 ?4 22 Cal Civ. Code 45; CONSPIRACY TO OF PRIVACY. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff brings this Complaint for damages against THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district duly organized and existing under the law of the State of California, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, based on the following allegations: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff SCOT GRAHAM (?Graham? or ?Plaintiff?), an individual, is a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 2. Defendant LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT or ?Defendant?) is a school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. 3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100 and therefore sues them by such ?ctitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said defendants are in some manner legally responsible for the activities and damages alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. 4. All claims asserted herein arose in Los Angeles County, California and therefore this court has jurisdiction over all Defendants and causes of action since, as alleged below, Defendants in?icted their harm upon Plaintiff in the County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia. 5. Venue is proper in this court insofar as Defendants regularly conduct business in the County of Los Angeles. Venue is further proper in this court insofar as the wrongful acts, injury and transactions occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 6. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants is the agent, joint venture, and/or employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, each was acting within the course and scope of said agency, 2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES h?nr?sI?AHHr?iw?Ap?np?n [10. 10 i employment and/or joint venture with the advance knowledge, acquiescence, or subsequent rati?cation of each and every remaining Defendant. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 7. On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff ?led timely complaints against the Defendants with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) alleging, among other things, sexual discrimination and failure to prevent sexual harassment. Thereafter, Plaintiff received noti?cation from the DFEH of his right to sue the Defendants in the Courts of the State of California. Such noti?cation is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8. On June 6, 2012, a California Government Tort Claim Act claim was submitted to the Los Angeles Uni?ed School District on behalf of Plaintiff. Said claim was in full compliance with California Government Code 6911.2. Plaintiff has therefore complied with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act - Cal. Gov. Code Section 900 et $11, for all causes of action. Said claim is attached hereto as Exhibit NATURE OF THE CASE 9. This Complaint is brought by Scot Graham (?Graham? or ?Plaintiff?), a 13?year employee of the Los Angeles Uni?ed School District who has had an impeccable tenure as Director of Real Estate and Asset Management at LAUSD. After being recruited by then Superintendent, Ramon C. Cortines (?Cortines?), Graham spent the better part of a decade spearheading a signi?cant portion of real estate endeavors. However, his tenure was marred by a series of sexual assaults that were directed towards him by Cortines during both the early part of Plaintiffs career and shortly before Cortines retired as Superintendent. The damage Graham suffered as a result of Cortines? heinous acts of sexual derogation was only compounded when Graham?s repeated complaints to of?cials at the highest echelons of the LAUSD were cast aside. Realizing that the organization to which he devoted over a decade of his life had no interest in acknowledging and/or investigating his very serious allegations, Graham retained counsel. 3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES KO GO \1 A DJ SUMMARY OF FACTS 10. On May 23, 2012, Defendants LAUSD and Cortines announced an alleged settlement of Graham?s claims during a press conference that was orchestrated by outside counsel and the public relations ?rm of Cerrell and Associates. During the conference, where members of the media were invited to attend and participate, the District falsely announced that an agreement had been reached with Graham in exchange for a release of his claims against LAUSD and Cortines. Also disseminated during the conference were the terms of a purported settlement, and a series of statements and documents that portrayed Graham in a false light and subjected him to unwanted and invasive media scrutiny and public ridicule. Prior to the press conference, Graham?s allegations were entirely private and had not been brought to the attention of the public. In fact, sexual harassment policy states: ?Sexual harassment complaints shall be handled in a con?dential manner to respect the privacy of all parties to the ?illest extent possible. Every effort will be made to limit distribution of information to those persons who need to know within the con?nes of the District?s reporting procedures and investigative process.? 11. actions were motivated by a blind desire to protect a cadre of high- ranking of?cials at LAUSD, including General Counsel David Holmquist. After being made aware of Graham?s complaints in October of 2010, Mr. Holmquist actively lulled Graham into silence and refused to investigate the reports of sexual harassment and assault that were brought to his attention. Despite Graham?s numerous complaints to of?cers of LAUSD, the organization continues its categorical refusal to investigate Graham?s allegations of harassment and retaliation to this day. While a neutral workplace investigation has yet to occur, Defendant LAUSD worked quickly to make Graham?s allegations public after Graham retained counsel and engaged in other protected activities to remedy his deplorable work environment and assert his rights. retaliatory media campaign was designed to salvage the reputation of LAUSD and its former Superintendent, and to discredit Graham, a 4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES HOQWNOMAWNHO 22 victim of Mr. Cortines? sexual appetite and Mr. Holmquist?s and the startling inaction. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS A. Cortines? Recruitment Efforts and Plaintiff?s Introduction to the LAUSD 12. Plaintiff association with the LAUSD began in March of 2000, when he was recruited to join the organization through the direct efforts and at the personal request of Cortines. Cortines suggested that working for the LAUSD would give Graham a ?sense of purpose.? It was only later that Cortines? intentions masked under the guise of providing Mr. Graham a more meaningful career opportunity were revealed. Cortines did not require Mr. Graham to submit to any of the prerequisites of securing employment at the LAUSD, and violated a myriad of LAUSD policies to hire him. Plaintiff was never interviewed for the Director of Real Estate position he assumed at the outset of his employment. Cortines? abuse of authority in hiring Scot was only the ?rst glimpse into the more egregious abuses he committed to satisfy his personal sexual urges. 13. Just days after Graham was hired, Cortines invited Graham to dine at the Water Grill Restaurant in Downtown Los Angeles, for what Graham was led to believe was purely professional and work related activity. Plaintiff accepted Cortines? invitation to drive them to the restaurant. Cortines paid for dinner and the two men returned to LAUSD headquarters. Upon their return, Cortines attempted to grab Scot?s penis and proposed that the two men go to the Superintendent?s of?ce to have sex. When Graham refused, Cortines stated that ?it was the least he could do? in exchange for the job that Cortines recruited him for. Graham again rebuffed Cortines? offer, but Cortines insisted that the two men would go undetected if they entered the building at 450 N. Grand Avenue, and that it was ?harmless? for them to have a ?little fun.? Cortines? advance shocked and disturbed Graham, who feared that declining Cortines? request for sex would lead to unwarranted retaliatory consequences. After multiple 4* attempts to make contact with Plaintiffs body, including his penis, Cortines ?nally relented, and the two men parted ways. 5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 25.. 14. It was a known fact, and Graham understood that Cortines could singlehandedly terminate any employee at the District. Cortines? sexual advance left Graham fearful that his refusal to acquiesce would leave him susceptible to adverse employment consequences. 15. From that moment ferward, Graham would enter the workplace in constant fear of Cortines? power and in?uence. LAUSD has honored Cortines by naming a High School after him, and has been adamant in rejecting pleas from concerned parents to have the Ramon C. Cortines School for Visual and Performing Arts renamed. B. Cortines? Departure and Subsequent Return 16. On or about June 7, 2000, Cortines left his position as Superintendent, only to return in 2009. The period of Cortines? absence gave Graham the opportunity to deal with the trauma caused by Cortines? sexual assault and to grapple with the monumental disappointment he experienced when it became clear that he had sacri?ced a higher-paying job only to be objecti?ed by Cortines, his new boss. 17. Cortines? return as Superintendent in 2009 brought a very abrupt halt to Graham?s period of relative normalcy and calm at the LAUSD. Graham feared but incorrectly remained hopeful that Cortines? return would have no deleterious effect on him. Indeed, Graham was aware that Cortines had targeted other LAUSD employees for refusing to submit to his advances, and that Cortines had a reputation for being persistent and abusive of his authority. C. Cortines? 2010 Invitation and His Subsequent Sexual Assault on Plaintiff 18. In July of 2010, Cortines personally invited Graham and his husband to his ranch in the Sierra Mountains (the ?Ranch?) for the weekend of July 24, 2010; Cortines had called for a mandatory administrative furlough on July 23. When Graham told Cortines that his husband would not be able to join them, Cortines suggested that he and Graham drive to the Ranch together. Cortines? invitation coincided with District lay-offs, and this created an air of unease and job insecurity for Graham, who was acutely aware that Cortines could eliminate his position at any time or protect him from being laid off. As the primary breadwinner in his household, Graham could not afford to risk losing his job. Hoping that Cortines? invitation 6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES mmwowooqoxLAAwNHo 3.. - . M. N. N. was strictly platonic, Graham reluctantly accepted. Cortines told Graham to leave his car at Cortines? primary residence, and insisted that he and Graham drive to the Ranch together. When the two men arrived at the Ranch, Cortines told Plaintiff that Plaintiff was ?in charge? of cooking dinner. Graham prepared dinner, and, after dinner, Cortines proposed that they go for a walk. lDuring the walk, Cortines made several inappropriate verbal and physical sexual advances towards Graham, attempting to grab and grope him. Cortines attempted to grab Graham?s hand and make contact with Graham?s body, including his torso, groin area and penis. Graham rebuffed Cortines? advances. At various times during the course of the walk, Cortines agreed to cease his attempts to touch Graham, only to reinitiate his. efforts multiple times throughout the walk. 19. Before retiring for the evening, Cortines tried to kiss Graham on the mouth by force. When Graham refused to be kissed, Cortines stated that he would ?visit? Graham?s bedroom later that evening. I 20. Upon entering his separate bedroom to sleep, Graham noticed that the door to his bedroom could not be locked. Graham attempted to call his husband, but noticed that his mobile phone was not getting reception and that the only land-line was in the communal area of the Ranch, which Cortines would supervise. Graham was unable to sleep and grew fearful for his safety. Shortly thereafter, Graham observed the door to his bedroom open, and Cortines enter the room. Graham quickly realized that Cortines was completely nude and that Cortines? penis was erect. Cortines then climbed into Graham?s bed, and proceeded to masturbate beside him. Frozen with fear and shock, Graham laid idle as Cortines masturbath and appeared to ejaculate on himself and near Graham. Cortines then grabbed Graham?s penis over his pajamas and stated ?you?re not getting hard.? Graham was speechless, and Cortines exited the room. 21. The next morning the two men exchanged very few words. Cortines stayed in the living room, making it-impossible for Graham to use the only working telephone line. Deprived of any means of contacting the outside world, and with Cortines? car being the only means of departure, Graham was forced to spend another evening trapped at the Ranch. When Graham stated that he wanted to go home, Cortines denied Graham?s requests. 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 5" a? $2 N- on .5111 ,nv?L 2383 <23: a? That evening, Cortines again entered Graham?s bedroom only to repeat the very same conduct as the previous evening. Undeterred by Graham?s utter unresponsiveness and fear, Cortines again entered Plaintiffs bed completely nude and masturbated beside him. 22. On the morning of July 25, 2010, before returning back to Los Angeles, Cortines attempted to kiss Graham. Graham again refused to have any physical contact with Cortines, who seemed to feel increasingly emboldened as Plaintiff displayed weakness and helplessness. D. Plaintiff?s Multiple Complaints to His Direct Supervisor and The Of?ce of the General Counsel Were Ignored 23. Upon his return to work at LAUSD, Graham was unable to focus on his job duties and found himself in constant fear of yet another unexpected call or invitation from Cortines. Graham began to notice that he was easily startled, had dif?culty sleeping, and lived in constant fear of losing his job at the whim of Cortines. Noticing a sharp decline in his productivity, which he attributed to the events that transpired at the Ranch, Graham arranged to meet with his immediate supervisor, John Creer (?Creer?). Graham met with Creer to discuss Cortines? inappropriate actions at the Ranch. Upon hearing of the incidents at the Ranch, Creer stated that he did not want to deal with such a sensitive issue involving the Superintendent, and suggested that Graham meet with James Sohn Graham?s senior supervisor and Chief Facilities Executive.1 24. On or about August 10, 2010, Graham met with Sohn in Sohn?s of?ce. Graham reported to Sohn that Cortines had made unwanted sexual advances towards him during the July 2010 weekend trip at the Ranch. Graham sought guidance and counsel as to how to respond and explained his concerns to Sohn. Sohn, who was appointed by Cortines, failed to report and/or investigate Graham?s complaints. In September 2010, Cortines called Graham at his home, and speaking in an amorous tone and made sexually suggestive remarks to Graham. Cortines? unsolicited call to Graham?s residence intensi?ed Graham?s distress and anxiety, and 1 Mr. Sohn resigned in 2011. 8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES prompted him to report Cortines? conduct to Sohn again, marking the third time Graham reported Cortines? harassing conduct to an LAUSD supervisor. 25. On or about October 13 2010, Graham was called into the of?ce of David Holmquist, general counsel and another Cortines appointee. Mr. Holmquist asked Graham if there was anything Graham wanted to share with him. Graham reported to Mr. Holmquist what he had previously stated to Sohn and Creer?that Cortines had sexually assaulted him during a weekend trip to Cortines? ranch. Graham reported to Mr. Holmquist that, during his weekend stay at the Ranch, Cortines walked into Graham?s bedroom naked and masturbated in his bed. Graham asked Mr. Holmquist about the implications of requesting an investigation into Cortines? sexual assaults, and admitted that he struggled with the thought of the matter being 'made public due to his fear of retaliation. Mr. Holmquist discouraged Graham from pursuing his claims, and suggested, in an intimidating and patronizing manner, that the incidents at the Ranch and Cortines? unsolicited phone call were better left unreported. Further, Mr. Holmquist did not instruct Graham to report future incidents, and failed to investigate and/or report Graham?s complaints. Graham, who had now reported Cortines? sexual harassment on four separate occasions, was lulled into foregoing his complaints altogether. 26. After witnessing the General Counsel?s reaction to his serious complaints, Graham reported the incident to another lawyer within the of?ce of the General Counsel. To date, even though Graham is still an employee of LAUSD, none of his complaints have been addressed or investigated. E. Biased and Discriminatory Sexual Harassment Policy On February 9, 2012, as Graham was driving home from work, he was ordered to return to work to tend to an urgent matter. Upon his return, he was instructed to terminate an independent contractor of the LAUSD because the independent contractor had been accused of sexual harassment. Plaintiff dutifully completed his assignment, all the while contemplating why the LAUSD meticulously handled that matter, while his own complaints of harassment went unheeded. 9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NNl?ir??Hr??Hr??r?di?Il?ll?l 22 F. Stealth Press Campaign 27. On or about May 22, 2012, at approximately 2:00 pm, an offer was made to Graham to settle his claims against LAUSD and Cortines. Graham was told that he had until 4:00 pm. that afternoon to Sign an ambiguous and biased short-form agreement. The short- form agreement omitted key terms that were essential to protect Graham?s privacy. Graham did not sign or agree to the terms that were proposed. 28. One day later, before any agreement was consummated on the terms the Board had proposed, LAUSD and Cortines announced that an agreement had been reached with Graham, and publicly disseminated both the terms of the purported settlement, Graham?s identity, and an inaccurate ?Chronology of Events,? that portrayed Graham as a willing participant in a nefarious extra-marital sexual affair. This premature and unauthorized announcement was made in the presence of select journalists from the Los Angeles Times, the Daily News and others, and was orchestrated with the aid of Cerrell and Associates, a public relations ?rm. The supposed ?chronology? states, inter alia, that in ?September/October 2012, [in a meeting with David Holmquist] Graham again said that everything was ok, he was dealing with the incident by seeing a therapist, and that he felt that confronting it would be much too embarrassing.? It further falsely stated that Mr. Holmquist ?made Graham promise to report to him if there was recurrence of any inappropriate behavior.? The public relations campaign was a clear invasion of Graham?s privacy and placed him in a false light. In addition, the own policies mandate that sexual harassment complaints shall ?be handled in a con?dential manner to respect the privacy of all parties to the fullest extent possible? and ?be given immediate attention.? 29. The press materials also intimate that Graham is homosexual, a fact that was of no concern to the general public. Graham alone, not LAUSD, is vested with the right to control whether or not his sexual orientation becomes a widely known fact and/or how such information is disclosed, if at all, to the public. Graham has a privacy interest in the fact of his sexual orientation, and the actions constitute a violation of Graham?s indelible right to protect disclosure of his sexual orientation and intimate activities. During the conference, 10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 23:24:; 26? 23 2'03 .m-y 3 WM- Cortines also released a statement on LAUSD letterhead stating that he and Graham had engaged in ?consensual spontaneous adult behavior.? Cortines? statement is false, painted Graham in a false light, and caused the public at large to speculate about Graham?s sexual orientation and marital loyalty. Such disclosures, along with disclosure of the other matters that were addressed in the press conference, were not authorized by Graham or by law. 30. press materials admit that Graham had brought his allegations to the attention of his supervisors, but falsely represent that Graham ?did not want anything done about it.? policies mandate that supervisors have an af?rmative duty to report all complaints and allegations of sexual harassment and that such complaints ?be given immediate attention.? This duty is absolute, regardless of the wishes of the complainant. press materials also included a statement from outside counsel, who declared that ?[a]ll District sexual harassment investigation practices were adhered and the evidence points to a consensual adult interaction between [Graham] and Mr. This statement was made despite the fact that a neutral investigation has yet to be undertaken by LAUSD, and when the very disclosure of Graham?s sexual harassment complaint is at odds with LAUSD policy. The statement was also made without regard to the fact that disclosure of the alleged ?consensual? nature of the relationship would ?out? Plaintiff as homosexual. The damaging LAUSD-sponsored press conference resulted in a public fallout that brought Graham under widespread public scrutiny. Graham refused to accept the terms of the settlement LAUSD purported to achieve and no agreement was ever executed between the parties. On June 6, 2012, Graham filed a government tort claim against both LAUSD and Cortines for the press conference, but never received a response to his claims. G. The Retaliatory Actions 31. As part of his compensation package with LAUSD, Graham is entitled to full medical bene?ts. On or about July 17 2012, Graham sought to use his medical bene?ts to secure medical care at Kaiser Permanente, the provider of his employer-sponsored insurance plan. To Graham?s surprise and shock, LAUSD had cancelled the entirety of his medical plan without his consent or knowledge in violation of Labor Code section 2806, 2800.3 and 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 22 California Insurance Code 12670 et seq. A member of Kaiser?s medical staff informed Graham that LAUSD had ?terminated? him from their plan and had instructed Kaiser to suspend his membership under the plan. As a result, Graham was unable to secure medical care and was stripped of all bene?ts despite being gainfully employed by LAUSD. He was later informed that LAUSD had ?erroneously? terminated his employment. 32. This clear act of retaliation caused Graham to be denied access to medical care that he required and was entitled to as part of his employment. Graham?s health suffered as a result of decision to terminate Graham?s bene?ts. Graham?s bene?ts were only reinstated after he complained. 33. Upon returning to work, Graham was also told that he would be taken off a ntunber of signi?cant projects, and that his reporting duties would be adjusted because certain employees (who were not identi?ed) felt ?uncomfortable? working with him. Graham was not given any legitimate explanation for these decisions. Graham has always maintained a stellar employment record and has never been the subject of disciplinary action. 34. On or around July 17, 2012, Graham was informed by Krisztina Tokes, Director of Asset Management and Graham?s direct supervisor, that his job responsibilities were being reduced. As part of this reduction, Graham was told that one of his direct reports, Yakaterina Boyajian, allegedly no longer felt ?comfortable? working with Graham. Graham was told that he was to cease all contact with Boyajian and her staff, and his supervisory responsibilities were stripped without further elaboration. 35. policies and the laws governing employment of civil servants entitle Graham to request justi?cation (via administrative hearing or investigation) into any reduction in his job duties and responsibilities. Accordingly, on July 18, 2012, Graham sent an email to Tokes requesting ?written justi?cation and administrative hearing justifying the reduction in [his] job responsibilities.? It was only eight days later, on July 26, 2012, that Tokes responded to Graham?s request. Tokes de?ected Graham?s request and stated that the issue ?pertains to and that LAUSD Human Resources Division would respond to Mr. Graham?s request the following Monday, July 30, 2012. 12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 2a: 36. LAUSD responded to Graham in a February 25, 2013 letter, as to why his job responsibilities were altered. Enclosed with that letter were two documents: an alleged memorandum, dated August 13, 2012, addressed to Mr. Graham (the ?August 13 Memorandum?); and an alleged memorandum, dated August 27, 2013, addressed to Boyajian (the ?August 27 Memorandum?). Graham never received the August 13 Memorandum. In fact, Graham was on leave on August 13, 2012, and remained on leave for many months thereafter. The August 13 Memorandum does not bear Graham?s home address, email, or any other identifying information that indicates he received notice of why his job responsibilities were being diminished. 37. In light of the foregoing, it appears that Graham was never afforded the opportunity to address or be fully apprised of Boyajian?s apparent accusations. Further, his requests for an administrative hearing and/or justi?cation for the reduction in his job duties have fallen on deaf ears. 38. The retaliatory behavior did not end there. Al Grazioli, who was allegedly hired to temporarily replace Mr. Graham during his period of leave, has now assumed part of Mr. Graham?s job duties while being paid more than Graham and holds the exact same job title as Graham?Director of Leasing and Space Utilization. This too is suspect, as the District has already made multiple attempts to terminate Mr. Graham notwithstanding his District-approved leave of absence. H. The Conseguences of Cortines? Actions and Culture of Secrecy 39. Defendant campaign of retaliation, including but not limited to the embarrassing press conference, combined with Cortines? sexual assaults at the Ranch, have had and continue to have a severe deleterious impact on Graham?s health, personal life, and future employment prospects. 40. The recent scandals that have plagued the LAUSD are indeed characteristic of how the institution is run at the highest levels. Graham, a victim of culture of sexual abuse, stealth and secrecy, still fears the wrath of a man who, despite his retirement, still wields signi?cant influence within the LAUSD. 13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES NNHr?lr?lD?lI??I?ll?lr??b?IH 22 Eng.) FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION FEHA - CAL. GOVT. CODE 8 12940 et sea 41. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 40, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 42. The above-alleged conduct was unwelcome, directed towards Plaintiff, and was part of an ongoing and continuing pattern of sexually harassing conduct. 43. The above-alleged conduct caused Plaintiff to perceive his work environment as intimidating, hostile, abusive or offensive. 44. Defendant LAUSD, by and through its employees, agents and of?cers, engaged in sexual discrimination towards Plaintiff, when it, among other things, published Plaintiffs identity and private sexual harassment complaints against former Superintendent Ramon C. Cortines and terminated Plaintiffs employee bene?ts as a result of Plaintiff bringing forth his claims. 45. Defendant LAUSD, through its directors, executives, of?cers, employees or agents sought to prevent Plaintiff from complaining of the harassing conduct by failing to take any actual steps to investigate Graham?s allegations, despite their knowledge of the hostility that was directed at him; and by engaging in intimidating conduct designed to persuade Plaintiff to forego his complaints against Defendants. 46. By reason of the conduct of Defendant LAUSD and its directors, executives, of?cers, employees and agents, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney?s fees and litigation expenses, including expert Witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. 47. As a result of Defendant actions, Plaintiff sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendant actions,'Plaintiff suffered emotional distress resulting in damages to be proven at trial. 48. The above discriminatory conduct violates Government Code sections 12940 et seq. and California public policy, entitling Plaintiff to all available categories of damages. l4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES La} 49. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys fees and seeks recovery of such fees according to proof. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PREVENT HARASSMENT FEHA - CAL. GOVT. CODE SECTIONS 129406) et sea. 50. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 49, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 51. In violation of California Code sections 12940 et seq., Defendant LAUSD, through its of?cers, directors, agents, or employees, failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent sexual harassment by its employees. 52. In perpetrating the above-described conduct, Defendant?s of?cers, directors, employees, and agents engaged in a pattern, practice, policy and custom of discrimination harassment. This conduct constituted an ongoing and continuous policy, practice, tradition, custom and usage which denied Plaintiff the protections of California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. 53. At all relevant time periods, Defendant LAUSD failed to make an adequate response and investigation into the conduct of Cortines, and the aforesaid pattern and practice, and thereby established a policy, custom, practice or usage within the LAUSD, which condoned, encouraged, tolerated, sanctioned, rati?ed, approved of, and/or acquiesced to sexual harassment towards Plaintiff. 54. At all relevant time periods alleged herein, there existed within the LAUSD a pattern and practice of conduct by their personnel which resulted in sexual harassment, and/or retaliation, including but not necessarily limited to, conduct directed at Plaintiff. 55. At all relevant time periods there existed, within the organization of Defendant,- a pattern and practice of conduct by personnel which resulted in retaliation toward anyone, including but not limited to Plaintiff, who complained of sexual harassment toward employees. 15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES \0 0? \1 0\ L11 b'w r?I 56. Defendant did not have an adequate sexual harassment policy and did not provide adequate sexual harassment training with respect to its employees, managers and supervisors. 57. Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the failure to provide adequate education, training and information as to their personnel policies and practices regarding sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining or resisting sexual harassment, would result in sexual harassment and retaliation against employees including but not limited to Plaintiff, for complaining or resisting the same. 58. The failure of Defendant LAUSD to provide adequate education, training, and information to personnel concerning policies and practices regarding sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining of or resisting the same, constituted deliberate indifference to the rights of employees, including but not limited to those of Plaintiff, under California Government Code sections 12940 et seq. 59. By reason of the conduct of Defendant as alleged herein, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attomey?s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. As a result of Defendant actions, Plaintiff sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendant actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress; resulting in damages to be proven at trial. 60. The conduct of Defendant LAUSD and/or its agents/employees as described herein was malicious, and/or oppressive, and done with a willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff 5 rights and for the deleterious consequences of Defendant?s actions. Defendant and/or its agents/employees or supervisors authorized, condoned and rati?ed the unlawful conduct of the remaining Defendants. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys fees and seeks recovery of such fees according to proof. 6? ?3 1 16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES r?t r?A r?A i?I r?A i?I THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION FEHA - CAL. GOVT. CODE SECTIONS 12940(h) et sea. 61. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 62. Defendant LAUSD engaged in conduct that, taken as a whole, materially and adversely affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff?s employment. 63. Defendants? decision to, among other things, terminate Plaintist employment bene?ts, disclose private facts relating to his complaints of sexual harassment against Cortines, and alter his employment duties was motivated, in whole or in part, by Plaintiff attempt to oppose the discrimination and harassment foisted upon him by Cortines and Plaintiff?s decision to oppose and complain about the unwelcome, inappropriate, sexually pervasive conduct of Cortines, and Plaintiff decision to seek legal recourse against LAUSD for its violations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. 64. Plaintiff was harmed by such retaliatory actions, and Defendant conduct was a substantial factor in causing such harm to Plaintiff. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING VIOLATIONS OF THE FEHA- Cal. Lab. Code 8 7287.7 65. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 64, inclusive of this Complaint, as though fully set forth herein. 66. Defendant LAUSD, by and through its of?cers, directors and/or employees, encouraged and/or assisted individuals within the organization to violate various provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act by, among other things, encouraging Plaintiff not to raise complaints about the harassment he experienced at the hands of Cortines, concealing information relating to Plaintiff?s complaint regarding Cortines, and persuading Plaintiff that his legitimate complaints of sexual assault and harassment should go unreported and iv uninvestigated. i 17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES .1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION 67. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 66, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 68. At all material times alleged herein, Defendant LAUSD was an employer within the meaning of Government Code section 12926. 69. At all material times alleged herein, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant. 70. At all material times herein, Plaintiffs performance as an employee was exemplary. 71. On information and belief, Defendants had an actual or de facto policy of favoring similarly situated heterosexual employees over homosexual employees, and had a pattern and practice of discriminating against homosexual men based on their sexual orientation. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages, and Plaintiff continues to suffer such injuries and damages. 73. At all times herein referenced, Plaintiff suffered physical manifestations of his emotional distress, including, without limitation, suffering sleeplessness, manic behavior, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and extreme mental and emotional pain and anguish. 74. Plaintiff is also entitled to special damages including, without limitation, medical expenses. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION 75. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 74, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 76. At all material times alleged herein, Defendant LAUSD was an employer within the meaning of Government Code section 12926. 77. At all material times alleged herein, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant. 18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES F1 26-? 78. At all material times herein, Plaintiffs performance as an employee was exemplary. 79. On information and belief, Defendant had an actual or de facto policy of favoring similarly situated female employees, and had a pattern and practice of discriminating against male employees based on their gender. 80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant unlawful acts, Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages, and Plaintiff continues to suffer such injuries and damages. 81. At all times herein referenced, Plaintiff suffered physical manifestations of his emotional distress, including, without limitation, suffering sleeplessness, manic behavior, embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and extreme mental and emotional pain and anguish. 82. Plaintiff is also entitled to special damages including, without limitation, medical expenses. 83. Defendant?s agents, employees, of?cers, or directors, have engaged in the acts and omissions described above with malice, oppression, and with an actual intent to injure Plaintiff and/or in conscious disregard of his rights, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages and exemplary damages. 84. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorney?s fees and seeks recovery of such fees according to proof. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 85. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 84 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 86. Defendant LAUSD, by and through its employees, agents and of?cers, intentionally in?icted emotional distress by engaging in acts over the course of several years including but not limited to the sexual assault upon Plaintiff by Defendant?s agent, subsequent retaliation, and intentional and reckless complete failure to provide assistance, reSponse, or any investigation to date. l9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 24.2} 261;. 2 .mr. i 5? Mt gm)? 87. Defendants intended to cause Plaintiff emotional distress and/or acted with reckless disregard of the probability that the Plaintiff would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Plaintiff was present when the conduct occurred. 88. The actions of all Defendants as herein alleged were outrageous and caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress. 89. Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff?s severe emotional distress. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 90. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 89, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 91. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress through Defendants? reckless violation of statutory standards. 92. Defendant LAUSD, directly or indirectly, engaged in negligent conduct in breach of its statutory duty to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment of their employees, including Plaintiff. 93. Defendant negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff severe emotional distress. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, 8 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 94. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 93 inclusive, of this complaint as though set forth in full. 95. The above-alleged conduct was unwelcome, directed towards Plaintiff, and was part of an ongoing and continuing pattern of sexually harassing conduct. 96. The above?alleged conduct caused Plaintiff to perceive his work environment as intimidating, hostile, abusive or offensive. 97. Defendant LAUSD, through its directors, executives, of?cers, employees or agents Mr. Holmquist) sought to prevent Plaintiff from complaining of the harassing 20 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES conduct of Cortines, by lulling Plaintiff into foregoing his legitimate complaint of sexual harassment against Cortines; by refusing to conduct an investigation into the very serious allegations of FEHA violations that were brought to its attention; and by harboring no intention of taking any actual steps to improve Plaintiff?s situation despite their knowledge of the hostility and sexual harassment directed at Plaintiff; and by engaging in intimidating conduct designed to force Plaintiff to submit to unwanted verbal and physical assaults. 98. By reason of the conduct of Defendant LAUSD and its directors, executives, of?cers, employees and agents, Plaintiff has necessarily retained attorneys to prosecute the within action. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney?s fees and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and costs, incurred in bringing the within action. 99. As a result of Defendant actions, Plaintiff sustained economic damages to be proven at trial. As a further result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff suffered emotional distress, resulting in damages to be proven at trial. 100. The above harassing conduct violates article I, 8 of the California Constitution, entitling Plaintiff to all available damages. 101. Plaintiff has incurred and continues to incur legal expenses and attorneys fees and seeks recovery of such fees according to proof. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I. 8 1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 102. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 101 inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 103. The public dissemination and publication of Plaintiff? sexual practices and sexual orientation by third parties is prohibited by the California Constitution's right of privacy. 104. Defendants engaged in conduct which invaded Plaintiffs privacy interests and right to privacy, and Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the interests A invaded. 105. The invasion of privacy was serious, and caused plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, loss and harm. 2 1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES wNHoxomqoxmanHo 23511:: 2'7 lea-.- 106. Plaintiff did not voluntarily consent or participate in activities impacting his privacy interests. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS 107. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 106, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 108. Defendants violated Plaintiff?s right to privacy by publicizing private information concerning, among other things, Plaintiff?s sexual orientation, the fact that Plaintiff had made a complaint of sexual harassment and assault against his former boss, Ramon C. Cortines, and the fact that Plaintiff had been negotiating a settlement of his claims with LAUSD concerning allegations of sexual harassment, including the specific dollar amount that was being negotiated. Plaintiff did not consent to the publication of such private information and did not seek public attention prior to the disclosure of such private information. 109. Any reasonable person in Plaintiff 5 position would consider the publicity highly offensive. 110. The private information that was made public was a substantial intrusion into Plaintiff privacy, and the information that was publicized did not have any signi?cant social value 111. Defendants knew, or acted with reckless disregard of the fact, that a reasonable person in Plaintiff?s position would consider the publicity highly offensive; 112. The private information that was publicized was not of legitimate public concern and did not have a substantial connection to a matter of legitimate public concern. 113. As a result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff has suffered harm, and Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff?s harm. 22 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES r?t r?I r?I l?l r?I la26: TWELVTH CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE LIGHT 114. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 113, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 115. Defendants publicized information or material that showed Plaintiff in a false light. 116. The false light created by the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in Plaintiff?s position. 117. Defendants knew the publication would create a false impression about Plaintiff, acted with reckless disregard for the truth, or were negligent in determining the truth of the information or whether a false impression would be created by its publication. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions, Plaintiff sustained harm to his social and professional reputation and will now have great dif?culty in securing employment in this and any other profession. I 18. 1 19. Defendants? conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff? harm. Defendants publicized the information or material by communicating it to the public at large or to so many people that the information or material was substantially certain to become public knowledge. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LIBEL Cal Civ. Code 8 45 120. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 119, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 121. On or about May 23, 2012, Cortines made the following false and unprivileged, defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff: A. [Cortines and Graham] did engage in consensual spontaneous adult behavior on one occasion?; B. ?Mr. Graham never indicated to [Cortines] that [their] interaction was unwelcome. 23 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES \quambmmi?a 2 122. Cortines? statements were false and accusatory toward Graham, and implied that Graham was unfaithful to his husband and had engaged in a consensual sexual behavior with his former boss. 123. On or about May 23, 2012, Defendant LAUSD, through its of?cers, employees and agents made the following false and unprivileged, defamatory statements concerning Plaintiff: A. ?Graham con?ded in his boss that Cortines has made a sexual advance but that he was dealing with it by going to a therapist and he did not want anything done about it. Graham said that his boss respected his wishes.? B. At a meeting between Graham and Holmquist, ?Graham again said that everything was ok, he was dealing with the incident by seeing a therapist, and that he felt that confronting [the 2010 incident at the Ranch] would be much too embarrassing. [Graham] also said that he did not want to tarnish Cortines? reputation.? 124. In publishing the above statements in a press release and during a press conference on May 22, 2012 and later again on May 23, 2012, Defendant LAUSD, through its agents acted with reckless disregard of falsity of the statement or knew that such statements were false. 125. Defendants? statements identified Graham, and/or were understood by the public to refer to him directly, and were reported as such in numerous media outlets. 126. The statements listed hereinabove are defamatory because they have a tendency to injure Plaintiff. 127. As a proximate result of Defendants? willful, malicious, knowing and intentional conduct, Plaintiff sustained and continues to sustain damages. 128. Defendants? false, malicious, and unprivileged publication exposed Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy, and that by reason of said libel, Plaintiff has suffered great mental anguish and has been, and is, and henceforth will be, greatly injured and prejudiced in his social and professional reputation. 24 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 25.1. im?ry 129. Defendants? acts were committed with fraud, willfulness, wantonness, malice, and oppression, entitling Plaintiff to an award of actual damages, plus punitive damages, in a presently unspeci?ed sum and dependant in part on Defendants? net worth, all to be shown at trial. Such damages should be awarded to Plaintiff, along with the imposition of a constructive trust over the assets, and over the assets ultimately traceable to the assets. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME 130. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 129, as if fully set forth herein. 131. By and through the actions set forth above, Defendants agreed to, entered into, and formed a conspiracy to engage in unlawful conduct designed to defame Plaintiff. 132. By and through the actions set forth above, Defendants engaged in acts pursuant to, and in furtherance of, said conspiracy. 133. Defendants? acts were committed with fraud, willfulness, wantonness, malice, and oppression, entitling Plaintiff to an award of actual damages, plus punitive damages, in a presently unspeci?ed sum and dependent in part on Defendants? net worth, all to be shown at trial. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION INVASION OF PRIVACY 134. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 133, inclusive, of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 135. Defendants made a public disclosure of a fact about the Plaintiff. 136. The facts disclosed were false, and portrayed the plaintiff in a false light. 137. The false light in which the Plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 138. Defendants had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard of the falsity of the publicized facts and the false light in which the plaintiff would be placed. 25 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 139. Defendants acted negligently in failing to learn whether the publicized facts placed Plaintiff in a false light. 140. This public disclosure caused Plaintiff to sustain damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follOws: 1. For general damages according to proof, however, in an amount no less than the jurisdictional minimum of this Court; 2. For special damages in amounts according to proof; 3. For double damages pursuant to California Labor Code section 972; 4. For punitive damages in amounts according to proof; 5. For attorneys? fees as provided by law; 6. For prejudgment, post-judgment and other interest as provided by law; 7. For cost of suit incurred herein; and 8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems fair and just. Dated: April 11, 2013 PETER LAW GROUP By: ARNOLD P. PETER MARCUS J. LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff SCOT GRAHAM 26 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES EXHIBIT A STATE OF CALIFORNIA - STATE CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY DEPARTMENT AIR EMPLOYMENT 1055 WEST 7TH STREET, SUITE 1400, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (213) 439-6770 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.. Governor W. Chang, Director June 06, 2012 GRAHAM, SCOT PETER LAW GROUP, 9100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 880W BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 RE: E201112R9564-00 ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Dear GRAHAM, SCOT: NOTICE OF CASE CLOSURE This letter informs that the above-referenced complaint that was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective June 06, 2012 because an immediate right-to-sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also the Right-To-Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. If a federal notice of Right-To?Sue is wanted, the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) must be visited to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. aft Notice of Case Closure . Page Two DFEH does not retain case files beyond three years after a complaint is ?led, unless the case is still open at the end of the three-year period. Sincerely, Lj MML obi/W Tina Walker District Administrator cc: Case File a: 2?7; DAVID COUNSEL ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT M833 8. BEAUDRY AVE., 24TH FLOOR imigLOS ANGELES, CA 90017 DFEH-20043 (06/06) EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA - STATE CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY EMPLOYMENT HOUSING. 1055 WEST 7TH STREET, SUITE 1400, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 (213) 439-6770 June 06,2012 GRAHAM, SCOT PETER LAW GROUP, 9100 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 880W BEVERLY RE: E201112R9564-01 RAMON. AS AN INDIVIDUAL Dear GRAHAM, SCOT: NOTICE OF CASE CLOSURE This letter informs that the above-referenced complaint that was filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has been closed effective June 06, 2012 because an immediate right-to-sue notice was requested. DFEH will take no further action on the complaint. This letter is also the Right-To-Sue Notice. According to Government Code section 12965, subdivision a civil action may be brought under the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act against the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency named in the above-referenced complaint. The civil action must be filed within one year from the date of this letter. If a federal notice of Right-To-Sue is wanted, the US. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) must be visited to file a complaint within 30 days of receipt of this DFEH Notice of Case Closure or within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act, whichever is earlier. Notice of Case Closure . Page Two DFEH does not retain case files beyond three years after a complaint is ?led, unless the case is still open at the end of the three-year period. Sincerely, m, (Mm Tina Walker District Administrator cc: Case File SAVITT ROSENBERG, GOLPER SAVITT W500 NORTH BRAND AVENUE, 20TH FLOOR CA 91203 DFEH-2004.3 (06/06) EXHIBIT krii LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Read entire claim form thoroughly. 2. Fill out claim form completely, as indicated. 3. The claim form must be signed by the claimant (or parent/guardian if claimant is a minor). 4. The ?ling of a claim form does not guarantee the claim will be paid - NOTE: PRESENTATION OF A FALSE CLAIM IS A FEDONY (PENAL CODE SEC 72) 1. Name of Claimant: 2. Home Telephone: 360+ giram Business Telephone: ?1 . I 3. Address of Claimant: {id-fr Law ({3va Wily 670112? 4. Name and Address where you wish notices or communications to be sent: Sam c. as abOvt 5. Claimant?s Date of Birth: 6. Claimant?s Social Security No: @10 51p 7. Date when damage occurred: 8. Time when damage occurred: We NIP: 9. Where did damage or injury occur? (Name of School, Address, Intersection, etc.) 1 A 10. Exact/precise location of incident: comer, location on property, etc.) If) Describe in detail how damage or injury occurred. (attach additional sheets, diagrams, if necessary) LAM 51) 'i marital (1m mnm/H??S inherit/new} platenIf.._611. . .9 fly; ii CL Wino/[j prqua, awn/1 l/iO/tf/ZD/i 607 I mamm - 5% I law enforcement emergency agencies called? Yes No W13. If a physician was visited because of this injury: We 1?0 Ln 80/036. Date of Visit: Physician?s Name: address: 036 in? Revised 2005 Lia} 14. Why do you believe the Los Angeles Uni?ed School District is responsible? LAMSD {s :6 4140, ?at/7014A? 71M: I mp/a (?er -. 15. Names of all District employees involved in this injury or damage: m/m/ H13 16. Witnesses to injury or damage. List all persons, with addresses and phone numbers, known to have information: (Attach additional sheet, if necessary) 17. List dollar amount of damages incurred to date (attach copies of receipts or estimates) /n grew J). s/o nod/10V? 18. Total dollar amount ofdamages to date: In Exam d1 1% nail/lbw 19. Total estimated dollar airhount of future damages: If) 5' Lb 0m 20. Signaturybyan Was filing on his/her behalf, (give relationship to claimant): )Mvanem4ijr clan/myrt- 21. Print or type name of person listed above DateQ WHOM (3/9/17. MAIL ORIGINAL COMPLETED FORM, WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS TO: Executive Of?cer of the Board of Education 333 S. Beaudry Ave. (24?11 Floor) Los Angeles, CA 90017 WARNING A?Claims for death, injury to person or to personal property must be ?led not later than six (6) months after the occurrence (Gov. Code Section 911.2) in} All other claims for damages must be ?led not later than one year after the occurrence (Gov. Code Section 911.2) 2. Board Secretariat Revised 2005 P. 5min} CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Name, .krnumber, and address)? i FOR COURT USE ONLY A i ?llL Ar;old Peter (SBN 120091); arcu SBN 281886), 1 PETER LAW GROUP - - 9100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 880W Beverly Hills, California 90212 TELEPHONE no.2 310.277.0010 ATTORNEY FOR (Name).- Plaintiff Scot Graham SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street Los An I ax to; 310.432.0599 9? 98 Superior com APR 11 2013 MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street John A- Clarke - CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, CA 90012 By WOW/Clerk BRANCH NAME: central SHA ESLEY Deputy CASE NAME: Graham v. LAUSD et a1 A CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE 'Unlimited Limited (Amount (Amount Counter Jomder JUDGE demanded demanded is Filed with ?rst appearance by defendant exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1?6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Auto (22) Breach of contract/Warranty (06) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) Other (Personal Other collections (09) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) ASbesms (04) Other contract (37) Product liability (24) Rea, Property MEdlcal malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse Other (23) condemnation (14) (Other) Tort i: Wrongful eviction (33) Business tort/unfair business practice (07) Other real prope?y (26) Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Fraud (16) Residential (32) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Other tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) oyment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Wrongful termination (36) El Writ of mandate (02) Other employment (15) [3 Other judicial review (39) 2. This case i: is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. Large number of separately represented parties b. i: Extensive motion practice raising dif?cult or novel issues that will be time-consuming to resolve c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) i:i Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Construction defect (10) Mass tort (40) Securities litigation (28) Environmentalfl?oxic tort (30) Cl I: Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement cfjudgment (20) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint i:i RICO (27) Other complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and corporate governance (21) Other petition (not speci?ed above) (43) 5 d. El Large number of witnesses 6. El Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision Remedies sought (check all that apply): am monetary b. nonmonetary; declaratory or iniunctive relief Number of causes of action (specify): [Fifteen gIhis case i: is is not a class action suit. 6. if there are any known related cases, ?le and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-01 .) Date: April 11, 2013 Maffcus Lee, Esq. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) C. punitive ones? (SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) lat. NOTICE Plaintiff must ?le this cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases ?led "under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rute 3.220.) Failure to ?le may result in, sanctions. ??le this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. oil?this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. 0 Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes on l. l-?r Jaguon Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400?3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 July 1, 2007] CM-010 ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE SHEET T.o Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are ?ling a ?rst paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and ?le, along with your ?rst paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases ?led. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case ?ts both a general and a more speci?c type of case listed in item 1, check the more speci?c one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be ?led only with your initial paper. Failure to ?le a cover sheet with the ?rst paper ?led in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is de?ned as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identi?cation of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant ?les a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may ?le and serve no later than the time of its ?rst appearance a joinder in the plaintiff?s designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)?Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury! Property DamageNVrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury] Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice? Physicians 8. Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other (23) Premises Liability slip and fall) Intentional Bodily assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent ln?iction of Emotional Distress Other PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Qgefamation slander, libel) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) Other Tort (35) Employment Wrongful Termination (36) 'Other Employment (15) rel" cmoto?rnev. July 1. 2007] CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract.l Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case?Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; othenlvise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ?Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter Writ?Other Limited Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) Review of Health Of?cer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3400-3403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmentaln'oxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certi?cation of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not speci?ed above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only lnjunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-torUnon-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not speci?ed above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim Other Civil Petition Page 2 of 2 SHORT TITLE: Graham v. LAUSD et al. CASE CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AN STATEMENT OF LOCATION mam (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION) This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.0 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court. Item I. Check the types of hearing and ?ll in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case: I JURY YES CLASS CI LIMITED TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 5 I: IZI DAYS Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps Iflyou checked ?Limited Case", skip to Item Ill, Pg. 4): Step After ?rst completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, ?nd the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected. Step 2: Check Superior Court type of action in Column below which best describes the nature of this case. Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.0. Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column below) I Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item Ill; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration. . Class actions must be ?led in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central district. . May be ?led in central (other county, or no bodily injury/property damage). . Location where cause of action arose. . Location where bodily injury. death or dama occurred. . Location where performance requrred or de endant resides. 6. Location of prope g. Location where petitioner resides. 92 10. Location of Labor Commissioner 0 or permanently garaged vehicle. Location wherein defendant/res ondent functions wholly. Location where one or more of he Frames reside. Ice A Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - *Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above - 1: Auto (22) Cl A7100 MotorVehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1., 2., 4. 3 .2 . Uninsured Motorist (46) El A7110 Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death Uninsured Motorist 1., 2., 4. Cl A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 2. Asbestos (04) E. 1: Cl A7221 Asbestos - Personal Injury/Wrongful Death 2. q; 0 in": Product Liability (24) El A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxiclenvironmental) 1., 2., 3., 4., 8. stir: c1 A7210 Medical Malpractice- Physicians &Surgeons 1., 4. -E P. Medical Malpractice (45) . Cl A7240 Other Professronal Health Care Malpractice 1A7250 Premises Liability slip and fall) 321% Other I 1., 4. a Personal Injury El A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamageNlIrongful Death 1? 4? property Damage assault. vandallsm, etc.) A7270 Intentional ln?iction of Emotional Distress 1" 3' 1? a El A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property DamageNVrongful Death 1" 4' melt-2' 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM ?Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of4 Graham v. LAUSD et al. I CASE NIIEER A Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Business Tort(07) A6029 ofcontract) 1.3. as - a: Civil Rights (08) El A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1,2,3 0 i 3 ED Defamation (13) El A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1,2,3 a: Fraud (16) El A6013 Fraud (no contract) . 3 A6017 Legal Malpractice 3. n_ 3? Professional Negligence (25) f: A6050 Other Professronal Malpractice (not medical or legal) 3. 2 3 Other (35) El A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Prepeity Damage tort 2..3. Wrongful Termination (36) El A6037 WrongfulTermination 2 [21 A6024 Other EmployrnentComplaintCase 2' Other Employment I In El A6109 LaborCommISSIonerAppeals 10. A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer orwrongful 2 5 eviction) Be ch fC ct/W a (23633 arranty Cl A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 2"5? insurance) El A6019 Negligent Breach ofContract/Warranty (nofraud) 1"2"5' Cl A6028 Other Breach of ContractNVarranty (not fraud or negligenceA6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 2.5., 6. *5 Collections (09) 8 El A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (18) A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) El A6009 Contractual Fraud Other Contract (37) El A6031 Tortious Interference A6027 OtherContract Eminent Domain/Inverse - . . . Condemnation (14) A7300 EminentDomain/Condemnation Number of parcels 2. a Wrongful Eviction (33) El A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2.6 a A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2.6. a: Other Real Property (26) A6032 Quiet Title 2,6. Eli-s El A6060 OtherReal Property (noteminentdomain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) 2,6. unlanulDet?g??r'commerc'al [Ii A6021 Unlawful Detainer?Commercial (notdrugs orwrongful eviction) 2,6. 0. ?53 UwalDt? R'dt?l g} "a eggr? 65' mm A6020 Unlawful Detainer?Residential (notdrugs orwrongful eviction) 2..6. '3 .7 Unlawful Detainer- Post_Foreclosure(34) Cl 2..6. Unlawful Detainer?Drugs (38) El A6022 Unlawful Detainer?Drugs JAG, it? LACIV 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of4 I CASE I Graham v. LAUSD et al. A Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above Asset Forfeiture (05) A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2., 6. Petition re Arbitration (11) El A6115 Petition to Compel/Con?rmNacate Arbitration 2., 5. '5 El A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus 2., 8. Writ of Mandate (02) A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2. 1:1 3, El A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2. Other Judicial Review (39) A6150 Other Writ [Judicial Review 2., 8. Antitrustfl?rade Regulation (03) El A6003 Antitrust/'1' rade Regulation 1., 2., 8. .3 Construction Defect(10) El A6007 Construction Defect 1., 2., 3. .3 . . Cla'ms lnvoaag Mass Ton El A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1., 2.. 8. 0 Securities Litigation (28) El A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1., 2., 8. 2' Toxic Tort - Environmental (30) El A6036 TOXIC TortlEnVIronmental 1., 2., 3., B. . -- lnsurance Coverage Claims . (L from Complex Case (41) A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1., 2., 5., 8. El A6141 Sister State Judgment 2., 9. El A6160 Abstract of Judgment 2., 6. 5, Enforcement El A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) 2., 9. 07 JUdgment (20) El A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2., 8. l? 3 El A6114 Petition/Certi?cate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2., 8. A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2., 8., 9, RICO (27) El A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1., 2., 8. 3 El A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1., 2., 8. SB . 8 Other Complaints A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment) 2., 8. (Not Spec'?e?j Above) (42) A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex) 1., 2., 8. 0 El A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) 1., 2., 8. Partnership Corporation . Governance (21) El A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2., B. El A6121 Civil Harassment 2.. 3., 9. JD 1:1 A6123 Workplace Harassment 2.. 3., 9. 6: ?fit "as A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case 2., 3., 9. Other Petitions at"; (Not Speci?ed Above) El A6190 Election Contest 2. 43 5t? El A6110 Petition for Change of Name 2., 7. El A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2., 3., 4., 8. .3 El A6100 Other Civil Petition 2., 9. {'71 hi, 109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of 4 SHORT TITLE.- I CASE PER Graham v. LAUSD et al. Item Ill. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other circumstance indicated in Item II, Step 3 on Page 1, as the proper reason for ?ling in the court location you selected. ADDRESS: REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown 333 South Beaudry Street under Column for the type of action that you have selected for this case. CH. 2. D3. D4. D5. C16. [37. D8. D9. D10. CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: Los Angeles 7 CA 90017 Item IV. Declaration of Assignment I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly ?led for assignment to the Stanley M?5k courthouse in the centra' District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., 392 et seq., and Local Rule 2.0, subds. and Dated; 04/11/2013 (S ATURE OF ATTORNEYIFILING PARTY) PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE: 1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2 If ?ling a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010. 4 Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 03/11). Payment in full of the ?ling fee, unless fees have been waived. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem. Judicial Council form if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Cepies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case. molt/4.109 (Rev. 03/11) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.0 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4