BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 131
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 21, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 131 (Beall) - As Amended: June 19, 2013
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:6-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill extends the statute of limitations (SOL) in limited
instances for civil actions involving childhood sexual abuse.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Retroactively applies the current SOL for commencement of
third party civil actions regarding recovery of damages
suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse. (The current
SOL is eight years after the plaintiff reaches majority (26
years of age) or within three years of the date the plaintiff
discovers that the psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the abuse, whichever
occurs later.
This retroactivity applies only to a claim that has not been
adjudicated to finality on the merits as of January 1, 2014.
2)Revives for one year, beginning January 1, 2014, causes of
action that would otherwise be barred solely by the SOL,
provided that the plaintiff's 26th birthday was before January
1, 2003, and the plaintiff discovered the cause of his or her
injuries after January 1, 2004.
3)Provides a plaintiff is entitled to conduct discovery before
the court may rule on a motion challenging the sufficiency of
the plaintiff's showing regarding a third party's knowledge of
any unlawful childhood sexual abuse and failure to take
reasonable steps to prevent the abuse. This discovery rule
does not apply to a cause of action revived by 1) or 2),
above.
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 131
Page 2
1)Unknown annual state trial court costs, potentially up to
hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the extent extending the
statute of limitations results in additional civil cases. For
example, if this bill results in 10 additional cases that
average two weeks of court time, annual costs could be in the
range of $400,000.
Court costs would be higher or lower depending on the number
of cases, the types of cases, and how cases are handled. Some
cases would be settled without significant court time. Some
may be grouped together. Others may require lengthier hearings
and trials.
2)Opponents of this measure - presumably the Catholic Church, as
the report was contained in a letter addressed to a
representative of the Sacramento Diocese - contracted for a
study to determine the potential fiscal impact on public
education costs should this bill lead to numerous and
successful judgments against Catholic dioceses, forcing the
church to close schools. The study concluded that, while there
is no way to determine the probability or magnitude of the
events, the closure of even 10 schools per year could result
in increased costs to the state in the tens of millions of
dollars.
Such a conclusion, however, assumes facts beyond the scope of
this study or this analysis. Issues such as availability of
insurance, whether funds could be redirected to protect
parochial schools in the event of major civil judgments, the
condition of diocesan budgets, the recent history of parochial
school closures across the country, and to what extent
closures are related to sex abuse settlements, would need to
be studied prior to a credible conclusion that California's GF
jeopardized by this bill. To this point, the New York Times
recently reported files released by the Roman Catholic
Archdiocese of Milwaukee on July 1 reveal that in 2007,
Cardinal Timothy F. Dolan, then Milwaukee archbishop,
requested permission from the Vatican to move nearly $57
million into a cemetery trust fund specifically to protect the
assets from victims of clergy sexual abuse who were demanding
compensation.
COMMENTS
SB 131
Page 3
1)Rationale . The SOL regarding child sexual abuse has been
amended repeatedly as it applies to third parties. Prior to
1998, actions against third parties who were legal causes of
the abuse had to begin within a year of the plaintiff's 18th
birthday. In 1998, the law was amended to allow the same time
limits against third parties as against the abuser, provided
that the suits were commenced before the plaintiff's 26th
birthday (AB 1651, Ortiz). In 2002, the law was amended to
allow delayed-discovery suits (cases in which the plaintiff
discovers psychological damage within three years of the
offense) against third parties after the plaintiff's 26th
birthday under specified conditions, and to allow a one-year
revival of actions against third parties that were otherwise
expired under the SOL. (SB 1779, Burton).
One consequence of these changes is Quarry v. Doe I (2012) 53
Cal.4th 945, which held that claims that expired per the 1998
law received the benefit of the one-year revival in the 2002
law but not the expansion of the delayed-discovery rule,
because the 2002 law did not explicitly include retroactive
application. As a result, claims were barred due to an
obsolete statute of limitations.
This bill makes the time limits for lawsuits per SB 1779
retroactive and, under specified conditions, revives - for one
year - causes of action that would otherwise be barred solely
by the SOL.
According to the author, "Over the last 27 years the
California Legislature has come to have a better understanding
of the insidious and latent nature of the injuries suffered by
a child who has been sexually abused and the reasons why
victims of childhood sex abuse often wait years before
reporting the abuse to law enforcement or otherwise.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, a remedial
statute intended to provide redress the child sex abuse
victims, has been amended no less than five times since its
original enactment in 1986, consistent with this evolving
knowledge of the latent effects of the original abuse. [This
bill] is the result of lessons learned over the past decade
from litigation of over 1,000 [child sexual abuse] lawsuits in
California and nationwide."
The revival of actions against perpetrators or third parties
only assures that a claim can be heard on its merits.
SB 131
Page 4
Plaintiffs still have to prove all elements of their case.
This bill also specifies a plaintiff is entitled to conduct
discovery before the court may rule on a motion challenging
sufficiency of the plaintiff's showing regarding a third
party's knowledge of any unlawful childhood sexual abuse and
failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the abuse. Under
existing law, plaintiffs making a claim against a third party
must show the third party knew, or had reason to know, of any
unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer or
representative, and failed to take reasonable steps to deter
acts of unlawful sexual conduct.
The author contends this requirement results in an onerously
high pleading standard for plaintiffs. Because relevant
evidence is typically found in an employer's records, in most
cases plaintiffs cannot plead sufficient facts prior to
discovery. This bill allows a plaintiff 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 of any unlawful sexual conduct by
an employee or agent.
This proposed new rule does not apply to a cause of action
revived pursuant to the provisions of this bill, since this
provision was not effective previously.
(For a thorough policy review of this bill, please see the
Assembly Judiciary Committee analysis.)
2)Current law :
a) Provides that the SOL for commencing a civil action
based on injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse is
eight years after the plaintiff reaches majority (26) or
within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers the
psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of
majority was caused by the abuse, whichever occurs later.
b) Prohibits an action for childhood sexual abuse against
third parties after the plaintiff turns 26, unless the
person or entity knew or had reason to know, of any
unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer,
representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable
steps to deter acts of unlawful sexual conduct by that
SB 131
Page 5
person.
c) Specifies the provision allowing a plaintiff over 26
years of age to file suit against specified third parties
in specified circumstances does not apply to claims that
lapsed under prior law before 1) and 2), above, became
effective in 2003. (Quarry v. Doe (2009) 53 Cal.4th 945.)
3)Supporters including the National Center for Victims of Crime,
CA Police Chiefs Association, the CA Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, the Consumer Attorneys of CA, Crime Victims United,
and the Peace Officers Research Association of CA., generally
contend these retroactivity and revival provisions are
necessary to give victims of abuse a fair chance at justice
and prevent future abuse. According to the National Center
for Victims of Crime (sponsor):
"It is critically important to allow these old cases to come
forward in order to protect children today. Even when it
takes a victim 30 years to come forward, we often find that
the abuser is continuing to molest children, even at 70 or 80
years old. However, children being abused today may not be
ready to come forward until decades into the future. When
victims of past abuse identify and expose perpetrators, often
more recent victims come forward who are within the criminal
statute of limitations once they realize that they are not
alone."
4)Opponents , including the CA Catholic Conference, the
Independent CA Colleges and Universities, the CA Council of
Nonprofit Organizations, and the CA Association of Private
School Organizations, generally contend that it is not fair to
change the SOL to revive claims that would otherwise be
expired. According to the CA Catholic Conference:
"At that time (referencing SB 1779, Burton), the debate in the
Legislature made it clear that the change was understood to be
a one-time revival . . . . Hundreds of claims were filed as a
result of that amendment, and the archdioceses and dioceses of
the Roman Catholic Church in California responded to those
actions, resulting in settlement payments to plaintiffs in
excess of $1.2 billion. Those settlements, however, were
predicated in large part on the assurances that were made when
SB 1779 was adopted, and assets that would otherwise have been
used for activities such as Catholic social services in
SB 131
Page 6
communities across California were seriously depleted, and
many insurance policies were surrendered in order to achieve
resolution of the revival claims."
The CA Council of Nonprofit Organizations (which has no
website, and whose letterhead does not reference its
membership, but according to its lobbyists represents churches
and private schools) bases much of its opposition on the
contention this bill unfairly targets private entities. As
noted in the Assembly Judiciary analysis, this argument stems
from the Government Tort Claims Act (GTCA), which generally
governs damage claims brought against public entities. The
GTCA requires that a claim relating to a cause of action for
death or injury be presented in writing to the public entity
no later than six months after the date upon which the cause
of action would be deemed to have accrued within the meaning
of the applicable statute of limitations. In Shirk v. Vista
Unified School District (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, the California
Supreme Court held that, notwithstanding the childhood sexual
abuse statute of limitations timeframes in CCP Section 340.1
and its delayed discovery provisions, an abuse victim must
follow the six-month presentation rule in the GTCA and cannot,
without having done so, take advantage of the
delayed-discovery rule otherwise applicable to sexual abuse
victims.
In 2008, however, the Legislature waived, for child sexual
abuse victims, the six-month notice of claim limitation
requirement that applies to all other tort claims (SB 640,
Simitian, Statutes of 2008) providing victims the same time to
file a claim against public entities as against private
institutions. SB 640 is prospective only; it does not revive
claims that had been barred by the GTCA prior to its passage.
Thus, the effect of this bill is to revive old claims against
private institutions, but since such claims are barred against
public institutions unless they are in compliance with the
GTCA, it would not revive old claims against public
institutions.
5)Previous Legislation .
a) AB 1628 (Beall, 2012) would have extended the statute of
limitations in child sex abuse civil cases to 35 years of
age, prohibited confidential settlements, and imposed new
duties on private entities. The bill was held on this
SB 131
Page 7
committee's Suspense File.
b) SB 640 (Simitian), Statutes of 2008, provided child sex
abuse claims arising out of conduct after January 1, 2009
are not subject to the Government Tort Claims Act, which
requires a claim against a public entity be presented
within six months of its accrual.
c) SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia), Statutes of 2002,
provided claims against a third party did not lapse when
the plaintiff turned 26, but only if specified requirements
were met. It also revived certain expired claims for one
year.
d) SB 674 (Ortiz), Statutes of 1999, made statutes of
limitations for childhood sexual abuse cases against third
parties retroactive.
e) AB 1651 (Ortiz), Statutes of 1998, extended the statute
of limitations in actions against third parties, requiring
any action against a third party had to be commenced before
the plaintiff's 26th birthday.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081