BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 924 (Beall) - Damages: childhood sexual abuse: statute of
limitations.
Amended: May 13, 2014 Policy Vote: Judiciary 5-2
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 19, 2014 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 924 would extend the statute of limitations for
civil actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of
childhood sexual abuse to be commenced within 22 years, instead
of eight years, of the date the plaintiff reaches the age of
majority.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown, potentially significant state court
costs (General Fund) to the extent extending the statute of
limitations results in additional court filings. For every 10 to
25 additional claims filed, assuming one week of court time,
annual costs would be about $200,000 to $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
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 1
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
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 civil actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of
childhood sexual abuse from any time prior to the plaintiff's
26th birthday to any time prior to the plaintiff's 40th birthday
for actions against a perpetrator or third party.
Related Legislation: SB 926 (Beall) 2014 would extend the
statute of limitations for the commencement of criminal
prosecution for specified felony sex offenses against a victim
under the age of 18, from any time prior to the victim's 28th
birthday to any time prior to the victim's 40th birthday. This
bill is currently on the Suspense File of this Committee.
Prior Legislation: SB 131 (Beall) 2013 would have allowed the
statute of limitations to be applied retroactively to any claim
that had not been adjudicated as of January 1, 2015, and would
have revived for a period of one year, a cause of action that
would have otherwise been time-barred, as specified. This bill
was vetoed by the Governor with an extensive veto message, which
stated, in part:
This bill makes amendments to the statute of
limitations relating to claims of childhood sexual
abuse. Specifically, it amends and significantly
expands a 2002 law to "revive" certain claims that
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 2
previously had been time barred.
Statutes of limitation reach back to Roman law and were
specifically enshrined in the English common law by the
Limitations Act of 1623. Ever since, and in every
state, including California, various limits have been
imposed on the time when lawsuits may still be
initiated. Even though valid and profoundly important
claims are at stake, all jurisdictions have seen fit to
bar actions after a lapse of years.
The reason for such a universal practice is one of
fairness. There comes a time when an individual or
organization should be secure in the reasonable
expectation that past acts are indeed in the past and
not subject to further lawsuits. With the passage of
time, evidence may be lost or disposed of, memories
fade and witnesses move away or die?.
This brings us to the bill now before me, SB 131. This
bill does not change a victim's ability to sue a
perpetrator. This bill also does not change the
significant inequity that exists between private and
public entities. What this bill does do is go back to
the only group, i.e. private institutions, that have
already been subjected to the unusual "one year revival
period" and makes them, and them alone, subject to suit
indefinitely. This extraordinary extension of the
statute of limitations, which legislators chose not to
apply to public institutions, is simply too open-ended
and unfair. For all these reasons, I am returning SB
131 without my signature.
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
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 3
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.
Staff Comments: By extending the statute of limitations for
bringing an action against an alleged perpetrator or third
party, that would otherwise be barred by the statute of
limitations prior to January 1, 2015, as specified, this bill
could result in an increase in causes of action filed with the
courts.
This bill would apply the extended time limits prospectively,
whereby a victim who turned 26 years old on December 31, 2014,
would not be eligible to file a claim to age 40, while a victim
turning 26 years old on January 2, 2015, would be eligible for
the extension to file a claim up to age 40.
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 prospective provisions of this bill, but for every 10 to 25
additional claims, assuming one week of court time, costs would
be in the range of $200,000 to $500,000 (General Fund),
utilizing an estimated daily court cost of $4,000.
To the extent the provisions of this measure impact the
operation and enrollment levels of private schools statewide to
SB 924 (Beall)
Page 4
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.