BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 15 (Holden)
Version: May 6, 2015
Hearing Date: July 7, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
RD
SUBJECT
Limitation of actions: human rights abuses
DESCRIPTION
This bill would extend the existing statute of limitations for
victims of human trafficking to bring a civil action from five
to seven years, and, in the case of minors, from eight to 10
years after the plaintiff attains the age of majority.
This bill would also create a 10 year statute of limitation to
bring:
an action for assault, battery, or both, where the conduct
constituting the assault or battery would also constitute
specified acts of torture, genocide, a war crime, attempted
extrajudicial killing, or crimes against humanity;
an action for wrongful death, where the death arises out of
conduct constituting any of the acts described above, or where
the death would constitute an extrajudicial killing under the
federal Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991;
an action for specified takings of property in violation of
international law; and
an action seeking benefits under an insurance policy where the
insurance claim arises out of any of the conduct described
above.
This bill would specify that an action brought under the 10 year
statutes of limitations shall not be dismissed for failure to
comply with any previously applicable statute of limitations.
This bill would provide that the 10 year statutes of limitations
applies to actions commenced concerning an act described by the
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 2 of ?
bill that occurs on or after January 1, 2016, and also applies
retroactively, as specified, if the conduct or action upon which
the victim's or plaintiff's claim is based occurred within 115
years before January 1, 2016. This bill would also apply these
10 year statutes of limitations provisions to all pending and
statutorily-barred actions commenced on or before January 1,
2018, including any actions dismissed based on the expiration of
statutes of limitations in effect before January 1, 2016, as
specified.
BACKGROUND
A statute of limitations is a requirement to commence legal
proceedings (either civil or criminal) within a specific period
of time. Statutes of limitations are tailored to the cause of
action at issue - for example, cases involving injury must be
brought within two years from the date of injury, cases relating
to written contracts must be brought four years from the date
the contract was broken, and, as commonly referenced in the
media, there is no statute of limitations for murder. Although
it may appear unfair to bar actions after the statute of
limitations has elapsed, that limitations period serves
important policy goals that help to preserve both the integrity
of our legal system and the due process rights of individuals.
For example, one significant reason that a limitations period is
necessary in many cases is that evidence may disappear over time
- paperwork gets lost, witnesses forget details or pass away,
and physical locations that may be key to a case change over
time. Limitations periods also promote finality by encouraging
an individual who has been wronged to bring an action sooner
rather than later - timely actions arguably ensure that the
greatest amount of evidence is available to all parties.
Despite the above reasons for enacting statutes of limitation,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that: "[t]here is
typically no statute of limitations for first-degree murder -
for the obvious reason that it would be intolerable to let a
cold-blooded murderer escape justice through the mere passage of
time . . . ." (United States v. Gallaher (2010) 624 F.3d 934,
942.) Accordingly, the lack of a statute of limitations for
murder represents a policy choice by the State of California
(and other states) that a person who takes another person's life
should not be able to escape prosecution just because the
prosecutor did not have sufficient evidence to bring a case
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 3 of ?
within a specified period of time.
In general, California law requires all civil actions be
commenced within applicable statutes of limitations. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 312.) Under existing law, the general statute of
limitations in California to bring an action for assault,
battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused
by the wrongful act or neglect of another, is two years. (Code
Civ. Proc. Sec. 335.1) Additionally, as a result of legislation
enacted in 2005, AB 22 (Lieber, Kuehl, and Liu, Ch. 240, Stats.
2005), existing law makes human trafficking a felony in this
state and grants human trafficking victims a longer statute of
limitations period than other victims of civil rights crimes to
bring their claims due to the special circumstances faced by
those victims. (See Comment 2a.) The resulting statute,
Section 52.5 of the Civil Code, permits a victim of human
trafficking to bring a civil action to recover actual damages,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any
combination of those, or any other appropriate relief, and sets
the statute of limitations for bringing such claims within five
years of the date on which the trafficking victim was freed from
the trafficking situation. Moreover, if the victim was a minor
when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred,
the statute of limitations is extended to eight years after the
date the plaintiff attains the age of majority. (See Civ. Code
Sec. 52.5(c).)
This bill would extend the above statute of limitations for
victims of human trafficking to bring a civil action from five
to seven years, and, in the case of minors, from eight to 10
years after the plaintiff attains the age of majority.
Additionally, this bill would enact a new provision creating an
exception to the two year statute of limitations for specified
civil actions arising out of assault, battery, or wrongful
death, and would apply the new 10 year statute of limitations
retroactively, as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law authorizes a victim of human trafficking to bring
a civil action for actual damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those,
or any other appropriate relief. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.5(a).)
Existing law requires those actions to be brought within five
years of the date on which the trafficking victim was freed
from the trafficking situation, or if the victim was a minor
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 4 of ?
when the act of human trafficking against the victim occurred,
within eight years after the date the plaintiff attains the
age of majority. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.5(c).)
Existing law tolls the running of the statute of limitations
for this action if the person entitled to sue is under a
disability, as specified, at the time the cause of action
accrues. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.5(d).) Existing law also
provides that the running of the statute of limitations may be
suspended where a person entitled to sue could not have
reasonably discovered the cause of action due to circumstances
resulting from the trafficking situation, such as
psychological trauma, cultural and linguistic isolation, and
the inability to access services. (Civ. Code Sec. 52.5(e).)
Existing law also requires a civil action to be stayed during
the pendency of any criminal action, as specified, arising out
of the same occurrence in which the claimant is the victim.
(Civ. Code Sec. 52.5(h).)
This bill would extend the general five year statute of
limitation for victims of human trafficking to seven years,
and would extend the statute of limitations for victims of
human trafficking who are minors from eight years after the
plaintiff attains the age of majority to 10 years after the
plaintiff attains the age of majority. This bill would make
other technical, non-substantive changes to these provisions.
2.Existing federal law , on genocide, provides that any person
who engages in any of the following, whether in time of peace
or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in
whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or
religious group as such, is guilty of genocide and will be
punished as specified:
kills members of that group;
causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties
of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar
techniques;
subjects the group to conditions of life intended to
cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in
part;
imposes measures intended to prevent births within the
group; or
transfers by force children of the group to another
group. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1091(a).)
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 5 of ?
Existing federal law , on war crimes, provides that whoever,
whether inside or outside the U.S., commits a war crime, as
defined, under certain circumstances (where the person
committing the war crime or the victim of the war crime is a
member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a national of the U.S.),
will be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any
term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim,
will also be subject to the penalty of death. Existing law
defines war crimes for these purposes to include any conduct:
defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a
party;
prohibited specified articles of the Annex to the Hague
Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on
Land, signed 18 October 1907;
which constitutes a grave breach, as specified, when
committed in the context of and in association with an
armed conflict not of an international character; or
of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and
contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions
or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other
Devices as amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as
amended on 3 May 1996), when the United States is a party
to such Protocol, willfully kills or causes serious injury
to civilians. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2441.)
Existing federal law , the Torture Victim Protection Act of
1991, provides that an individual who, under actual or
apparent authority or color of law of any foreign nation,
subjects an individual to torture or to extrajudicial killing,
as specified, will be liable for damages to that individual or
that individual's legal representative or to any person who
may be a claimant in a wrongful death action. Existing law
provides for a 10 year statute of limitations under this Act.
(Pub. L. No. 102- 256, Section 3(a), 106 Stat. 103 (1992).)
Existing federal law , the Alien Tort Claims Act (or Alien Tort
Statute), provides that the district courts of the federal
courts of the United States will have original jurisdiction of
any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in
violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States. (28 U.S.C. Section 1350.)
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 6 of ?
Existing law provides that every person who, with the intent
to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering for the purpose
of revenge, extortion, persuasion, or for any sadistic
purpose, inflicts great bodily injury, as specified, upon the
person of another is guilty of torture. Existing law provides
that the crime of torture requires no proof that the victim
suffered pain. (Pen. Code Sec. 206.)
Existing law generally provides that civil actions must be
commenced within applicable statutes of limitations under the
Code of Civil Procedure, as specified, without exception,
unless the Legislature prescribes a different limitation by
statute in special cases. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 312.)
Existing law specifies time periods under which certain
actions other than an action for the recovery of real property
must be commenced. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 335 et seq.)
Existing law generally provides that an action for assault,
battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual
caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another must be
brought within two years. (Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 335.1.)
Existing law provides that when a cause of action has arisen
in another state, or in a foreign country, and by the laws
thereof an action thereon cannot be maintained against a
person by reason of the lapse of time, an action thereon shall
not be maintained against him in California, except in favor
of one who has been a citizen of California, and who has held
the cause of action from the time it accrued. (Code Civ.
Proc. Sec. 361.)
This bill would provide, notwithstanding any other law, the
following actions must be commenced within 10 years:
(1) An action for assault, battery, or both, where the
conduct constituting the assault or battery would also
constitute any of the following:
an act of torture, as described under the Penal
Code, as specified;
an act of genocide, as described in applicable
federal law on genocide;
a war crime, as defined in applicable federal law on
war crimes;
an attempted extrajudicial killing, as defined under
the federal Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991; or
crimes against humanity.
(1) An action for wrongful death, where the death arises out
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 7 of ?
of conduct constituting any of the acts described in
paragraph (1), or where the death would constitute an
extrajudicial killing, as defined in the federal Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991.
(2) An action for the taking of property in violation of
international law, in which either of the following apply:
that property, or any property exchanged for such
property, is present in the U.S. in connection with a
commercial activity carried on in the U.S. by a foreign
state; or
that property, or any property exchanged for such
property, is owned or operated by an agency or
instrumentality of a foreign state and that agency or
instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in
the U.S.
(1) An action seeking benefits under an insurance policy
where the insurance claim arises out of any of the conduct
described in (1) - (3), above.
This bill would prohibit an action brought under the above 10
year statutes of limitations provisions, from being dismissed
for failure to comply with any previously applicable statute
of limitations.
This bill would specify that Section 361 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, prohibiting an action from being maintained against
a person in this State (except in favor of a citizen of
California who has held the cause of action from the time it
accrued) when a cause of action has arisen in another state or
a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon
cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the
lapse of time, shall not apply to an action brought under this
section.
This bill would provide that a prevailing plaintiff may be
awarded reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs
including, but not limited to, expert witness fees and
expenses as part of the costs.
This bill would specify that these provisions shall apply to
all actions commenced concerning an act described by the bill
that occurs on or after January 1, 2016.
This bill would provide that these provisions shall also be
construed to apply retroactively, and apply regardless of when
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 8 of ?
an action or claim accrues or is filed and regardless of
whether it may have lapsed or otherwise been barred by time
under the laws of the state, if the conduct or action upon
which the victim's or plaintiff's claim is based occurred
within 115 years before January 1, 2016.
This bill would further specify that these provisions shall
apply to all pending and statutorily-barred actions commenced
on or before January 1, 2018, including any actions dismissed
based on the expiration of statutes of limitations in effect
before January 1, 2016, if the judgment in that action is not
yet final or if the time for filing an appeal from a decision
on that action has not expired, if the action concerns an act
described by the bill, that occurred within 115 years before
January 1, 2016.
This bill would provide that the provisions of this section
are severable. If any provision of this act or its
application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or applications that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application.
This bill would define "crimes against humanity" to include
any of the following specified acts as part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against a civil population, with
knowledge of the attack: (1) murder; (2) extermination; (3)
enslavement; (4) forcible transfer of population; (5)
arbitrary detention; (6) rape, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any
other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (7)
persecution on political, race, national, ethnic, cultural,
religious, or gender grounds; (8) enforced disappearance of
persons; (9) other inhuman acts of similar character
intentionally causing great suffering, serious bodily injury,
or serious mental injury.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
When victims of human rights violations file in state court,
they must assert tort claims, such as wrongful death, assault,
or battery. In California, victims only have two years before
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 9 of ?
their claims expire. While there are good reasons for statutes
of limitation in the normal context, victims of human rights
abuses face unique obstacles to bringing their suit. It often
takes many years for victims to find their way out of perilous
circumstances, they typically have very little money or
resources, and their cases can be especially challenging and
time-consuming. The result is that most human rights claims go
unheard - allowing even the most reprehensible human rights
abusers to escape justice simply because time is on their
side.
AB 15 seeks to re-balance the scales of human rights cases and
allow survivors ten years to bring their claims to state
court, if they can show their claims results from an egregious
abuse of their fundamental rights.
In support, the Bay Area Friends of Tibet writes that it
believes the bill may help Tibetans. "The International
Commission of Jurists in their report on Tibet and the Chinese
People's Republic Geneva, 1960, reported that acts of genocide
had been committed in Tibet. A Spanish court handed former
President of China, Hu, Jintao an indictment for genocide and
ordered the arrest of five defendants on November 18, 2013.
Such a bill helps further highlight the red lines that should
never be crossed in international politics with respect to Tibet
and China. We trust that it will help provide further relief
against those who may be complicit with economic and
geopolitical interests and there will always be truth, justice,
and human rights. We trust that the bill will fight for the
benefit of Tibetan people, all Chinese citizens and others
persecuted by a government they did not choose."
2. Bill would extend the statutes of limitations for certain
assault, battery, and wrongful death claims to 10 years
As noted in the Background, a statute of limitations is a
requirement to commence legal proceedings (either civil or
criminal) within a specific period of time. Statutes of
limitations are tailored to the cause of action at issue - for
example, cases involving injury must be brought within two years
from the date of injury, cases relating to written contracts
must be brought four years from the date the contract was
broken, and, as commonly referenced in the media, there is no
statute of limitations for murder. Although it may appear
unfair to bar actions after the statute of limitations has
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 10 of ?
elapsed, the limitations period serves important policy goals
that help to preserve both the integrity of our legal system and
the due process rights of individuals. The purpose is to prevent
the assertion of stale claims and, ultimately, "to promote
justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims
that have been allowed to slumber until evidence is lost,
memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared." (3 Witkin
Cal. Proc. Actions Sec. 433.)
This bill seeks to create new 10 year statutes of limitations
for certain acts of assault, battery, wrongful death, takings of
property in violation of international law, and insurance
claims. Namely, under this bill, a 10 year statute of
limitations would apply to each of the following: (1) an action
for assault, battery, or both, where the conduct constituting
the assault or battery would also constitute an act of torture,
an act of genocide, a war crime, an attempted extrajudicial
killing or a crime against humanity; (2) an action for wrongful
death, where the death arises out of conduct constituting any of
the preceding acts, or where the death would constitute an
extrajudicial killing; (3) an action for the taking of property
in violation of international law, in which either that
property, or any property exchanged for such property, is
present in the U.S. in connection with a commercial activity
carried on in the U.S. by a foreign state; or that property, or
any property exchanged for such property, is owned or operated
by an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state and that
agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in
the U.S.; or (4) an action seeking benefits under an insurance
policy where the insurance claim arises out of any of the
aforementioned conduct.
In response to such concerns that this bill could revive stale
claims, the sponsor, International Corporate Accountability
Roundtable, writes that:
[E]xtending the statute of limitations simply removes the
arbitrary deadline for filing a claim, which currently favors
abusers over victims. AB 15 does not create any new causes of
actions, and plaintiffs still bear the heavy burden of proof.
Where plaintiffs lack evidence to support their claims, a
defendant need only file a motion to dismiss. The justice
system will work to root out cases that are unsubstantiated by
evidence, allowing those claims that can be proven to go
forward and allowing survivors to recover. Personal
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 11 of ?
jurisdiction restrictions generally limit these claims to
defendants residing in-state, so the state has a vested
interest in not serving as a safe harbor for such abusers.
California also has its own version of forum non conviens or
restrictions on venue to dismiss or transfer the case if
needed.
It is also important to note that California has no statute of
limitations for numerous serious crimes, such as first-degree
murder, kidnapping for ransom, and embezzlement of public
funds. Cal. Pen. Code [Sec.] 799. This point is significant
because the burden of proof in a civil case is a preponderance
of the evidence, but the burden in a criminal case is guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite that high bar, concerns
over stale claims, faded memories, or lost evidence have not
counseled against the ability to bring criminal charges at any
time when the crime is sufficiently serious. Nor should they
in civil cases arising out of egregious human rights
violations, where the burden of proof is lower but the need
for a remedy just as great.
[Furthermore, t]here are also numerous civil causes of action
for which there are no statute of limitations in California.
For example, there is no statute of limitations for an action
to recover money or property deposited with a bank (Cal. Civ.
Proc. [Sec.] 348), or for an action "upon any bonds or coupons
issued by the State of California" (Cal. Civ. Proc. [Sec.]
348.5).
3. Federal preemption and foreign affairs considerations
Over the years, this Legislature has sought to enact a series of
measures to temporarily extend the statute of limitations for
victims of wartime atrocities. Likewise, one-by-one, courts
subsequently struck down each of those sister statutes as
preempted by federal law. (Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung
AG (2009) 578 F.3d 1052 (Section 354.4, permitting Armenian
Genocide insurance claims held preempted by federal foreign
affairs power), citing Deutsch v. Turner Corp. (2003) 317 F.3d
1105 (Section 354.6, permitting victims of Nazi slave and forced
labor programs to recover compensation for labor from any entity
or its successor in interest who benefited from that labor, held
preempted under foreign policy field preemption doctrine) and
Steinberg v. International Commission on Holocaust Insurance
Claims (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 944 (Section 354.5, permitting
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 12 of ?
Holocaust victims or their heirs or beneficiaries to bring
claims based on insurance policies issued in Europe before 1945,
held preempted by a federal policy favoring settlement of such
claims through the International Commission on Holocaust Era
Insurance Claims); see also Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of
Art of Pasadena (2010) 592 F.3d 954 (Section 354.3 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, permitting persons to bring claims to
recover "Holocaust-era artworks" taken by the Nazis during World
War II, held preempted under the foreign policy field preemption
doctrine.) Notably, in Movsesian, the case relating to
Armenian Genocide insurance claims, the Ninth Circuit eventually
reversed its own opinion upon rehearing, holding that there was
no conflict preemption where: (1) was no clear federal policy
with respect to references of the Armenian Genocide; and (2)
neither the Claims Agreement of 1922 nor the War Claims Act of
1928 resolving World War I-related claims between the U.S. and
Germany has any application to life insurance policies issued to
citizens of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 by private
insurance companies. (Movsesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG
(2010) 629 F.3d 901 at 905, 908). The court relied in part on
the fact that that the Armenian Genocide-related claims
addressed by Section 354.4 (arising out of policies from
1875-1923) were private insurance claims, not wartime injuries,
and extended past the end of World War I by five years, and past
the relevant federal post-war agreement by one year. (Id. at
908.)
That being said, the author maintains that "[s]tates have always
had the duty and ability to provide remedies for human rights
abuses, either in conjunction with or in place of federal law.
While there are some federal remedies available to victims of
human rights abuses, these statutes only cover a limited number
of offenses and parties, leaving state law to fill in the gaps."
In support, the firm of Hadsell, Stormer & Renick, LLP, writes
about their years of experience representing victims of abuse,
including international human rights abuses, both in federal and
state courts in California:
We know how important state courts, and state law, can be for
victims of human rights abuses. In Doe v. Unocal, our firm
represented victims of severe human rights abuses - including
rapes, torture and killing - by the Burmese (Myanmar) military
regime. Although we originally filed the cost in federal
court, we litigated in Superior Court in Los Angeles after our
federal claims were dismissed. It was the California state
court case that brought our clients to a favorable settlement,
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 13 of ?
compensating them for abuses.
In Bowoto v. Chevron, in which we represented victims of
torture and killings by the Nigerian military, we also brought
both federal and state claims. Some of our California law
claims, however, were barred by the statute of limitations,
because the victims did not know soon enough which companies
were responsible. This law would help ensure that victims
have a fair chance to bring their claims in court.
Notably, this bill would also exempt the actions subject to the
new 10 year statutes of limitations from existing law, Section
361 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section creates a
general rule that when a cause of action has arisen in another
jurisdiction (another state or country), but cannot be
maintained against a particular defendant in that jurisdiction
because the time to bring the claim has lapsed in that
jurisdiction, the action cannot be maintained against that
defendant in California. The statute creates an exception,
however, for a plaintiff who has been a citizen of California,
and who has held the cause of action from the time it accrued.
"Past cases establish that this exception applies only where the
plaintiff was a California citizen at the time the cause of
action accrued, and does not extend to a plaintiff who became a
citizen of California after the cause of action accrued but
before the lawsuit in question was filed." (McCann v. Foster
Wheeler LLC (2010) 48 Cal.4th 68, 85 (internal citations
omitted).) In other words, a plaintiff is generally not allowed
to "shop around" for a more favorable state, such as California,
to get around a statute of limitations problem. This bill would
create an exception to that rule, for acts of torture, war
crimes, genocide, attempted extrajudicial killing, or crimes
against humanity. Accordingly, this Committee may wish to
consider whether such an exception is necessary to effectuate
this bill.
4.Bill would apply retroactively and to pending litigation
As a matter of public policy, it is preferable to ensure that
bills apply prospectively, so as not to change the outcome of
ongoing litigation in favor of one party. This bill would not
only create a new ten year statute of limitations for claims
arising out of certain acts of assault, battery, or wrongful
death involving specified acts such as torture or genocide, but
it would both apply retroactively, and it would apply to certain
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 14 of ?
ongoing cases. Specifically, the bill would provide that the
above-discussed 10 year statutes of limitations applies as
follows: (1) to actions commenced concerning an act described by
the bill that occurs on or after January 1, 2016; (2)
retroactively, regardless of when an action or claim accrues or
is filed and regardless of whether it may have lapsed or
otherwise been barred by time under the laws of the state, if
the conduct or action upon which the victim's or plaintiff's
claim is based occurred within 115 years before January 1, 2016;
and (3) to all pending and statutorily-barred actions commenced
on or before January 1, 2018, including any actions dismissed
based on the expiration of statutes of limitations in effect
before January 1, 2016, if the judgment in that action is not
yet final or the time for filing an appeal from a decision on
that action has not expired, and if the action concerns a
specified act that occurred within 115 years before January 1,
2016.
The sponsor of this bill, the International Corporate
Accountability Roundtable writes:
California has frequently recognized the need to eliminate,
extend, and/or revive the limitations period for numerous
civil causes of action that are equally or less grave than the
types of abuses covered by this amendment, and the courts have
long recognized that "a legislature's choice to extend, or
even revive, the statutes of limitations in a civil case does
not violate the defendant's right to due process." Cruz v.
United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1079-80 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
AB 15 is designed to offer survivors of grave human rights
abuses dating beyond the bill's ten year threshold a two-year
window to file their civil claims that have been barred by
time limits all these years. Given the complexity of human
rights claims, this short two-year window will serve to limit
revived claims to the most meritorious cases where substantial
evidence has already been gathered. AB 15 is supported by the
Armenian National Committee, Jewish World Watch, and the
American Jewish World Service, among others.
[Moreover,] California recently extended the statute of
limitations for actions for the recovery of a work of art from
a museum or gallery that was unlawfully taken or stolen, and
revived all such claims over the past 100 years. Cal. Civ.
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 15 of ?
Proc. [Sec.] 338 (c)(3). This provision recently survived a
foreign policy preemption challenge in the Ninth Circuit.
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Found., 737 F.3d 613
(9th Cir. 2013). The legislature has also revived, and
eliminated the limitations period, for claims arising out of
the Bracero labor importation program between January 1, 1942
and January 1, 1950. Cal. Civ[.]Proc[.] [Sec.] 354.7 (b) &
(c). See also Cruz v. United States, 387 F. Supp. 2d 1057,
1079-80 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
All of this considered, we do not expect a significant
increase in the number of claims brought under this provision.
The bill merely provides more time to bring an action that may
already be heard - and even then, only under limited and
extraordinary circumstances.
Given the concerns that arise with retroactive application of
any bill, the Committee may wish to consider whether the bill
should be limited to apply prospectively. The following
amendment would remove the retroactive language, as well as the
language that would affect pending litigation:
Suggested amendment :
On page 6, strike lines 5 - 19, in their entirety.
5.Bill would extend existing statute of limitations for victims
of human trafficking
As noted in the Background, in 2005, California law was amended
to not only make human trafficking a crime, but to also add a
new section that permits a victim of human trafficking to bring
a civil action up to five years after the date on which the
victim was freed from the trafficking situation. In the event
the victim was a minor at the time the human trafficking
occurred, the statute of limitations is instead set at eight
years after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority. This
section also provides for the tolling of the statute of
limitations under various circumstances to, again, accommodate
the special circumstances surrounding these victims in
particular. Moreover, the section allows these successful
plaintiffs to recover actual damages, compensatory damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those,
or any other appropriate relief. (See Civ. Code Sec. 52.5.)
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 16 of ?
When previously considering the addition of a specific statute
of limitations for human trafficking victims, this Committee's
analysis noted that the proponents asserted that "the civil
remedies provision will encourage private enforcement of
victims' rights, either in addition to criminal prosecution or
in cases, in which the trafficker is not prosecuted. 'In some
cases, prosecutors may decide not to prosecute for a variety of
reasons including the difficulty of meeting the higher burden of
proof in a criminal case. Even where successful prosecution
does occur, restitution may be insufficient or unavailable to
compensate the victim. This provision will ensure that victims
have the opportunity to seek full compensation from
traffickers.'" (Sen. Judiciary Com., analysis of AB 22
(2005-2006 Reg. Session), p.9.) Proponents argued that "this
lengthy period is necessary because human trafficking victims
suffer from serious emotional and psychological trauma that it
generally takes them years to even understand what they have
been through and to determine that they should exercise a right
to be compensated for their suffering. The one-year statute of
limitation [under Section 340.3], or even the three-year statute
[under Section 340.15 relating to domestic violence claims] . .
. might be too soon for a human trafficking victim to get into a
mindset of litigating their damages from the human trafficking
situation." As such, a decision was consciously made to allow
these victims more time than is otherwise allowed for victims of
civil rights violations, domestic violence, or hate crimes.
(Id. at pp. 11-12.)
This bill would now extend the statute of limitations under
these provisions from five years to seven years, generally; for
victims who are minors, the bill would extend the statute of
limitations from eight years after the plaintiff reaches the age
of majority (18) to 10 years after the plaintiff reaches the age
of majority. As noted by multiple proponents of this bill,
"[i]t often takes many years for victims to find their way out
of perilous circumstances as they typically have very little
money or resources, and their cases can be especially
challenging and time-consuming." Also in support, the law firm
of Hadsell, Stormer & Renick, LLP, similarly details how in many
cases, survivors of abuse may not be able to find lawyers and
bring their claims until long after the statute of limitations
has passed. "Survivors of abuse may suffer from physical and
psychological consequences, including PTSD [post-traumatic
stress disorder], depression, anxiety, grief, and other trauma.
They may be in a precarious security situation, such as a civil
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 17 of ?
war, or [ . . . ] refugee camps [ . . . ]. Although all
personal injury plaintiffs have suffered in some way, the
traumatic nature of human rights violations presents a unique
obstacle to obtaining counsel and organizing a claim."
Support : Accountability Counsel; American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO; American
Jewish World Service; Amnesty International USA; Armenian
National Committee of America-Western Region; Attorneys for the
Rights of the Child; Bay Area Friends of Tibet; California
Catholic Conference of Bishops; California Police Chiefs
Association; Center for Justice and Accountability; Center for
Women Policy Studies; Clergy and Laity United for Economic
Justice; Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking; Consumer
Attorneys of California; EarthRights International; Electronic
Frontier Foundation; Girls Against Porn and Human Trafficking;
Global Exchange; GoodWeave International; Government
Accountability Project; Hadsell, Stromer & Renick, LLP;
HealthWrights; Human Rights Center at UC Berkeley Law; Institute
for Global Labour and Human Rights; Investors Against Genocide;
Jewish World Watch; Latin America Working Group; Los Angeles
Peace Council; National Center for Lesbian Rights; National
Council of Jewish Women-CA; National Immigration Project of the
NLG; National Lawyers Guild-Los Angeles; Network for Cultural
Change; Oxfam America; Pesticide Action Network; Runaway Girl,
Inc.; Survivors for Solutions; several individuals
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : International Corporate Accountability Roundtable
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation : AB 22 (Lieber, Keuhl and Liu, Ch. 240,
Stats. 2005), See Background.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 79, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************
AB 15 (Holden)
Page 18 of ?