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