CA SB 131 Passes Assembly 44-15! Tell Senators to Vote YES!
BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 131|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 131
Author: Beall (D) and Lara (D), et al.
Amended: 6/19/13
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-1, 5/7/13
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning
NOES: Anderson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-1, 5/23/13
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
SENATE FLOOR : 21-10, 5/29/13
AYES: Beall, Block, Corbett, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans,
Hancock, Hernandez, Hill, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Liu, Monning,
Pavley, Price, Roth, Steinberg, Torres, Wolk, Wyland
NOES: Anderson, Berryhill, Correa, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines,
Huff, Knight, Nielsen, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cannella, Galgiani, Hueso, Lieu,
Padilla, Wright, Yee, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-15, 9/4/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Damages: childhood sexual abuse: statute of
limitations
SOURCE : National Center for Victims of Crime
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill provides that the time limits for
commencement of an action for recovery of damages suffered as a
result of childhood sexual abuse be applied retroactively to any
claim that has not been adjudicated to finality on the merits as
of January 1, 2014. This bill revives, for a period of one
year, a cause of action, as specified, that would otherwise be
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 or her
injury on or after January 1, 2004. This bill provides that a
partyis entitled to conduct discovery before the court may rule
on a motion challenging the sufficiency of the plaintiff's
showing that a person or entity knew or had reason to know, or
was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct and
failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable
safeguards, to avoid those acts in the future. This bill
specifies that this entitlement does not apply to a cause of
action revived pursuant to these provisions.
Assembly Amendments make technical changes.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1. 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.
(Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) Section 340)
2. 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.
(CCP Section 340.1)
3. Provides that in civil actions, as 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
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
3
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. (CCP Section
340.1)
4. For a period of one year commencing January 1, 2003,
existing law revived certain actions that would otherwise be
barred solely because the applicable statute of limitations
had expired.
This bill:
1. Provides that the time limits for commencement of an action
for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood
sexual abuse be applied retroactively to any claim that has
not been adjudicated to finality on the merits as of January
1, 2014.
2. Revives, for a period of one year, a cause of action, as
specified, that would otherwise be 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 or her injury on or
after January 1, 2004.
3. Provides that a party is entitled to conduct discovery before
the court may rule on a motion challenging the sufficiency of
the plaintiff's showing that a person or entity knew or had
reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful
sexual conduct and failed to take reasonable steps, and to
implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid those acts in the
future.
4. Specifies that this entitlement does not apply to a cause of
action revived pursuant to these provisions.
Background
Before 1990, claims of childhood sexual abuse were governed by a
one year statute of limitations. (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
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
4
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, Statutes of 1990) That law
provides that the time for commencing an action based on
injuries resulting from "childhood sexual abuse" shall be eight
years after the plaintiff reaches majority (i.e., age 26) or
within three years of the date of 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. 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, Statutes 1998) to apply
the extended statute of limitations in 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. (CCP Section 340.1(b).) In 2002, SB
1779 (Burton and Escutia, Chapter 149, Statutes of 2002) 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
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
5
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.
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
retroactive intent in SB 1779 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/4/13)
National Center for Victims of Crime (source)
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
American Association of University Women
Boys and Girls Club - Santa Barbara
California Association of Chiefs of Police
California Coalition Against Sexual Assaults
California Nurses Association
Child Abuse Listening Mediation
College Democrats at Pacific Union College
Consumer Attorneys of California
Crime Victims United of California
Equality California
National Association of Social Workers
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
6
National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence
National Safe Child Coalition
Peace Officers Research Association
Protective Parents Association
San Diego County District Attorney
Santa Clara County District Attorney
Waste Less Living, Inc.
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/4/13)
California Association of Private School Organizations
California Catholic Conference
California Council of Nonprofit Organizations
California State Alliance of YMCA
La Raza Roundtable
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "Over the last
27 years the California Legislature has come to have a better
understanding of the insidious and latent nature of the injuries
suffered by a child who has been sexually abused and the reasons
why victims of childhood sex abuse often wait years before
reporting the abuse to law enforcement or otherwise. California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, a remedial statute
intended to provide redress the child sex abuse victims, has
been amended no less than five times since its original
enactment in 1986, consistent with this evolving knowledge of
the latent effects of the original abuse."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Catholic Conference
(CCC). states, "Although this bill has now been amended several
times in the Senate, we remain opposed, because the provision in
the bill that would revive time-barred claims of childhood
sexual abuse is tailored to provide relief only to a certain
class of victims to the exclusion of the vast majority of child
abuse victims. Although there have been concepts in the various
iterations of the bill that the CCC could support, the current
contents are unreasonable and inequitable. If the bill is
intended, as its author has claimed, to provide access to
justice for the victims of child abuse, it makes utterly no
sense to exclude more than 90% of those victims access to the
courts, while granting that same right to a precious few."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-15, 9/4/13
CONTINUED
SB 131
Page
7
AYES: Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Bonta, Bradford, Ian Calderon,
Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Dahle, Dickinson, Fong, Fox, Frazier,
Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger Hernández,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Mitchell, Morrell,
Mullin, Nazarian, Pan, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva,
Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Waldron, Weber,
Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez
NOES: Bocanegra, Chávez, Donnelly, Beth Gaines, Grove, Hagman,
Harkey, Jones, Mansoor, Medina, Muratsuchi, Nestande,
Patterson, Wagner, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Alejo, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla,
Brown, Buchanan, Campos, Conway, Daly, Eggman, Garcia, Gorell,
Holden, Logue, Maienschein, Melendez, Olsen, Perea, Vacancy,
Vacancy
AL:k 9/5/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED