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 ?