BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 924|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 924
Author: Beall (D) and Lara (D)
Amended: 5/27/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/6/14
AYES: Jackson, Corbett, Lara, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Vidak
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SUBJECT : Childhood sexual abuse: statute of limitations
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill provides that an action for recovery of
damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse that
occurred on or after January 1, 2015, shall be commenced within
22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority
or within three years 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.
ANALYSIS : Existing law generally provides that the time for
commencing a civil action for damages shall be within two years
of the injury or death caused by the wrongful act or neglect of
another.
CONTINUED
SB 924
Page
2
Existing law provides that the time for commencing an action
based on injuries resulting from childhood sexual abuse, as
defined, shall be eight years after the plaintiff reaches
majority (i.e., 26 years of age) or within three years of the
date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have
discovered that the psychological injury or illness occurring
after the age of majority was caused by the abuse, whichever
occurs later.
Existing law provides that in the civil actions described above
against persons or entities other than the perpetrator, whose
intentional, negligent, or wrongful act was the legal cause of
the sex abuse, the plaintiff must show that the person or entity
knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of
unlawful sexual conduct of an employee or agent, and failed to
take reasonable steps, as specified, to avoid acts of unlawful
sexual conduct in the future.
This bill provides that an action for recovery of damages
suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse that occurred on
or after January 1, 2015, shall be commenced within 22 years of
the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within
three years 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.
Background
Before 1990, claims of childhood sexual abuse were governed by a
one year statute of limitations. (Code of Civil Procedure (CCP)
Section 340(3).) However, if the cause of action accrued while
the plaintiff was a minor, the statute was tolled until he/she
became an adult. (CCP Section 352(a).) Thus, any complaint had
to be filed within one year of the plaintiff's 18th birthday.
In 1990, the Legislature rewrote the statute of limitations for
cases involving adult trauma caused by childhood sexual abuse.
(SB 108, Lockyer, Chapter 1578.) That law provides that the
time limit for commencing an action based on injuries resulting
from "childhood sexual abuse" shall be eight years after the
plaintiff reaches the age of majority (i.e., age 26) or within
three years of the date of the plaintiff discovers or reasonably
CONTINUED
SB 924
Page
3
should have discovered that the psychological injury or illness
occurring after the age of majority was caused by the abuse,
whichever occurs later. As subsequently interpreted by the
courts, SB 108 changed the statute of limitations for actions
against the perpetrators, but did not change it for actions
against other responsible third parties. (See Debbie Reynolds
Prof. Rehearsal Studios v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th
222; Tietge v. Western Province of the Services (1997) 55
Cal.App.4th 382.)
In 1998, the Legislature responded to this interpretation and
enacted AB 1651 (Ortiz, Chapter 1021) to apply the extended
statute of limitations to actions against third parties.
However, any action against any person or entity other than the
sexual abuser would have to be commenced before the plaintiff's
26th birthday. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 340.1(b).) In 2002, SB
1779 (Burton and Escutia, Chapter 149) was enacted to extend the
statute of limitations in cases against a third party who was
not the perpetrator of the sexual abuse beyond age 26, when the
third party knew or had reason to know of complaints against an
employee or agent for unlawful sexual conduct and failed to take
reasonable steps to avoid similar unlawful conduct by that
employee or agent in the future. SB 1779 also created a one
year window in which victims 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 in California during the one year
window in 2003. However, between 2005 and 2012, about 50 cases
were filed by victims who were over the age of 26 in 2003, but
did not make a causal connection between childhood abuse and
problems as an adult until after 2003. The Quarry brothers, who
filed suit in 2007, were among those who filed one of these
cases. The trial court dismissed the case based on their age in
2003 (over 26 years of age), stating that the brothers should
have brought their case within the one year window under SB
1779. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's decision, and held that the one year window only applied
to victims who were both over the age of 26, and had made the
required causal connection more than three years prior to
January 1, 2003. It held that victims like the Quarry brothers
were not barred as of January 1, 2003, and could avail
themselves of the option of filing a claim within three years
from discovery.
CONTINUED
SB 924
Page
4
Ultimately, the Quarry case and about 20 others were taken up by
the California Supreme Court. (Quarry v. Doe (2009) 53 Cal.4th
945.) The Court held that the Legislature failed to make its
intent for SB 1779 to be retroactive clear, and the rules of
statutory construction required that when the Legislature amends
a statute of limitations, that amendment is presumed to be
prospective, and is retroactive only if the Legislature
expressly provides that it is intended to be retroactive and
revive previously time-barred claims. The majority found the
language of SB 1779 did not satisfy that rule of construction,
and must be interpreted prospectively, or limited to the one
year window. The dissent disagreed, and invited the Legislature
to fix the problem.
That invitation was answered by SB 131 (Beall, 2013), which
would have allowed the statute of limitations to be applied
retroactively to any claim that had not been adjudicated as of
January 1, 2014. That bill also would have revived, for a
period of one year, a cause of action that would have otherwise
been barred by the statute of limitations as of January 1, 2014,
provided that the plaintiff's 26th birthday was before January
1, 2003, and the plaintiff discovered the cause of his/her
injury on or after January 1, 2004.
SB 131 was vetoed by Governor Brown who noted the reliance of
third parties on the certainty of the statute of limitations
created by SB 1779, and the unintentional inequities when that
bill only benefited victims who sought to sue a private entity.
Regarding SB 131, the Governor wrote, "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 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."
Prior Legislation
SB 131 (Beall, 2013) See Background.
CONTINUED
SB 924
Page
5
AB 1628 (Beall, 2012) would have extended the statute of
limitations in civil cases involving child sex abuse to 35 years
of age, prohibited confidential settlements, and imposed new
duties on private entities. The bill died in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
SB 1779 (Burton and Escutia, Chapter 149, Statutes of 2002) See
Background.
AB 1651 (Ortiz, Chapter 1021, Statutes of 1998) See Background.
SB 108 (Lockyer, Chapter 1578, Statutes of 1990) See Background.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, unknown,
potentially significant future 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).
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/19/14)
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
California Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
California Police Chiefs Association
California Protective Parents Association
Child Abuse Listening Mediation, Inc.
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Consumer Attorneys of California
Crime Victims United
Incest Survivors' Speakers Bureau
Restorative Justice International
Safe Child Coalition
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/19/14)
California Catholic Conference Inc.
California Council of Nonprofit Organizations
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Over the last
27 years the California Legislature has come to have a better
CONTINUED
SB 924
Page
6
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 sexual abuse ("CSA") often wait years
before reporting the abuse to law enforcement or otherwise.
California Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 340.1, a remedial
statute intended to provide redress to CSA 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."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Council of Nonprofit
Organizations (CCNO) argues that the requirement that the injury
be communicated to the victim by a mental health practitioner
creates avenues for abuse, "SB 924 would put complete control of
the delayed "discovery" in the hands of the claimant. The
existing standard at least nominally contains a subjective and
objective component in the "discovers or reasonably should have
discovered" language. SB 924 would permit a plaintiff who is
100 percent aware of both the injury and the connection to the
childhood abuse to nevertheless extend the statute indefinitely
by merely refusing to enter therapy with a mental health
practitioner-thereby controlling the timing of the "first
communication" of the connection by the therapist and triggering
of the limitation period. Particularly troubling is the fact
that this loophole would theoretically permit a claimant to
strategically wait to trigger the filing period until witnesses
are infirm or dead, and documents have been surely discarded,
thereby virtually eliminating any chance that the defendant
could effectively defend against the claim."
AL:k 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED