BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 131 (Beall) - Damages: childhood sexual abuse: statute of
limitations.
Amended: May 9, 2013 Policy Vote: Judiciary 5-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 23, 2013 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Bill Summary: SB 131 would extend the statute of limitations for
civil actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of
childhood sexual abuse to be commenced, as follows:
For actions against the perpetrator, to within 25 years
(currently within 8 years) of the date the plaintiff
reaches the age of majority or within five years (currently
within 3 years of discovery) of the date the fact of the
psychological injury and its causal connection to the
sexual abuse is first communicated to the plaintiff by a
licensed mental health practitioner, whichever occurs
later.
For actions against third parties, within 12 years
(currently within 8 years) of the date the plaintiff
reaches the age of majority or within five years (currently
within 3 years of discovery) of the date the fact of the
psychological injury and its causal connection to the
sexual abuse is first communicated to the plaintiff by a
licensed mental health practitioner, whichever occurs
later.
Provides that the time limits noted above for
commencement of an action shall be applied retroactively,
and would revive, for a period of one year, a cause of
action against a third party that would otherwise be barred
by the statute of limitations as of January 1, 2014,
provided that the plaintiff discovered the cause of his or
her injury through communication by a mental health
practitioner on or after January 1, 2004.
Provides that a plaintiff shall be entitled to conduct
discovery before the court may rule on a motion challenging
the sufficiency of the plaintiff's showing that a person or
entity knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on
notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee or
SB 131 (Beall)
Page 1
agent, and failed to take reasonable steps to avoid those
acts in the future.
Fiscal Impact (as approved on May 23, 2013): Unknown,
potentially significant state court costs (General Fund) to the
extent providing for the one-year retroactive window results in
additional civil cases. For every 25 additional claims filed,
assuming one week of court time, annual costs potentially in
excess of $500,000 (General Fund).
Background: Claims of childhood sexual abuse were governed by a
one-year statute of limitations prior to 1990. If the cause of
action accrued while the plaintiff was a minor, the statute was
tolled until the minor reached the age of majority, and a
complaint had to be filed within one year of the plaintiff's
18th birthday.
SB 108 (Lockyer) Chapter 1578/1990 rewrote the statute of
limitations and extended the time limit for commencing an action
based on injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse to eight
years after the age of majority (age 26) or within three years
of the date of discovery, whichever occurs later. SB 108 was
determined to apply only to actions against perpetrators, and
not actions against third parties. In 1998, AB 1651 (Ortiz)
Chapter 1021/1998 applied the extended statute of limitations to
actions against third parties. In 2002, SB 1779 (Burton/Escutia)
was enacted to extend the statute of limitations in cases
against a third party beyond age 26, when the third party knew
or had reason to know of complaints against an employee and
failed to take reasonable steps to prevent similar unlawful
conduct. In addition, SB 1779 created a one-year window in which
victims of any age could bring a claim against a third party
when that claim would have otherwise been barred solely because
the statute of limitations had expired.
Almost 1,000 cases were filed during the one-year period in
2003. Subsequently, between 2005 and 2012, about 50 cases were
filed by victims who were over age 26 in 2003 but did not make a
causal connection until after 2003. The Quarry brothers who
filed suit in 2007, had their case dismissed based on their age
in 2003 (over 26 years), where the court stated that the
brothers should have brought their case within the one-year
window under SB 1779. Ultimately, in Quarry v. Doe (2009) 53
Cal.4th 945, the court held that the Legislature failed to make
SB 131 (Beall)
Page 2
its retroactive intent clear in SB 1779, and found the language
did not expressly provide for retroactivity and revive
previously time-barred claims.
Proposed Law: This bill would extend the statute of limitations
on actions against a person for committing an act of childhood
sexual abuse to 43 years (from the current 26 years) for actions
against a perpetrator, and would extend the statute of
limitations to 30 years of age (from the current 26 years) for
actions against third parties.
In addition, under current law, a claim may made against a
perpetrator or third party within three years of the date the
plaintive discovers or reasonably should have discovered that
the injury occurring after the age of majority was caused by the
abuse. This bill would extend and revise this provision of law
and allow claims against perpetrators and third parties within
five years of the date a mental health practitioner first
communicates the causal connection to the plaintiff.
This bill would apply the time limits retroactively to any claim
not adjudicated to finality on the merits as of January 1, 2014.
In addition, this bill creates a one-year window for actions
against third parties (excluding public entities) that would
otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations as of January
1, 2014, provided the plaintiff made the causal connection by
being informed by a licensed mental health practitioner after
January 1, 2004.
Related Legislation: AB 1628 (Beall) 2012 would have extended
the statute of limitations in civil cases involving child sexual
abuse to 35 years of age, prohibited confidential settlements,
and imposed new duties on private entities. This bill was held
in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
SB 640 (Simitian) Chapter 383/2008 provided that child sex abuse
claims are not subject to the Government Torts Claim Act, which
provides that no lawsuit for money damages may be brought
against a governmental entity unless a written claim has been
properly filed within a six-month time limit. The bill's
provisions have been applied prospectively, thereby allowing
child sex abuse claims against public entities arising out of
conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009, to not be limited
by the six-month time period.
SB 131 (Beall)
Page 3
Staff Comments: By extending the statute of limitations for
bringing an action against an alleged perpetrator or third
party, as well as reviving for one year a cause of action
against a third party that would otherwise be barred by the
statute of limitations as of January 1, 2014, as specified, this
bill would result in increased causes of action filed with the
courts. In addition, the change from the objective and
subjective component under the existing standard of "within
three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably
should have discovered," to "within five years of the date the
sexual abuse is first communicated to the plaintiff by a
licensed mental health practitioner practicing within the
state," could significantly extend the period of time in which a
plaintiff has to file a claim.
This bill would apply the extended time limits retroactively,
and create a one-year period in which victims who would
otherwise have been time barred to submit a claim provided
he/she made the required causal connection, as redefined, after
2004. This one year window would allow individuals who are over
the maximum age allowed by the statute of limitations, but who
made the causal connection after the one year window created by
SB 1779 (2002), to bring a case against a third party. The
following individuals could potentially be eligible to file a
claim:
Persons older than 26 years as of December 31, 2013, and
who discovered the connection under the existing standards
more than three years prior to that date.
Persons who were older than 26 years prior to 2003 and who
discovered the connection before 2003 (claimants who failed
to file during the one-year revival period in 2003).
Persons who were older than 26 prior to 2003 but who
didn't discover the connection until after 2003 (those
barred by the Quarry case).
In order to be eligible, the plaintiffs in the categories above
would have to "discover the cause of his or her injuries," by
being informed by a mental health practitioner on or after
January 1, 2004. In practical terms, even plaintiffs who would
have been barred under the existing standard of "knew or should
have known," could potentially file a claim due to the delayed
discovery standard requiring communication with a mental health
SB 131 (Beall)
Page 4
practitioner of the injury.
The provisions of this measure are not anticipated to have an
impact on the decision in Shirk v. Vista Unified School District
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, in which the California Supreme Court
held that a timely public entity six-month claim is a
prerequisite to maintaining an action for childhood sexual abuse
against a public entity school district. The Court based its
holding primarily on its finding that nothing in the express
language or legislative history indicated intent by the
Legislature to exempt Section 340.1 claims from the Act and its
six-month claim presentation requirement. Therefore, no claims
arising out of injuries suffered by victims of abuse by
employees of public entities where the conduct occurred prior to
January 1, 2009, would be eligible under this bill's revival
period. The extended and revised statute of limitations would
apply prospectively, however, for claims based on allegations of
abuse after January 1, 2009 (pursuant to provisions enacted
under SB 640 (Simitian) 2008, noted above).
It is unknown how many additional claims will be brought under
the retroactive and prospective provisions of this bill, but for
every 25 to 50 additional claims, assuming one week of court
time, costs would be in the range of $500,000 to $1 million
(General Fund), utilizing an estimated daily court cost of
$4,000. To the extent this bill results in extended litigation
due to the provision entitling plaintiffs to conduct discovery
before the court may rule on a motion challenging the
sufficiency of the plaintiff's showing in cases that otherwise
would have been dismissed, could also lead to increased
litigation costs.
To the extent the provisions of this measure impact the
operation and enrollment levels of private schools statewide to
a level that causes some degree of displacement from private to
public school enrollment could result in future General Fund
cost pressure of an unknown, but potentially significant amount.
Committee Amendments:
Revert the statute of limitations and delayed discovery
provisions for actions against all parties back to existing
law.
Narrow the retroactive one-year window to cases against
third parties that otherwise would have been barred solely
SB 131 (Beall)
Page 5
by the statute of limitations as of January 1, 2014,
provided the plaintiff's 26th birthday was before January
1, 2003, and the plaintiff discovered the cause of his or
her injuries on or after January 1, 2004.