46 Cal.App.5th 415
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- E.D., a 17-year-old high‑school student, alleged repeated sexual intercourse and oral sex with a teacher in 2014–2015; the teacher pled no contest to felony unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
- E.D. (plaintiff) sued the teacher, New Haven Unified School District, the principal, and others in June 2016 for sexual abuse, negligence, breach of statutory duties, and intentional/ negligent infliction of emotional distress; foster mother Tinella Coats joined emotional‑distress claims.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the district and principal, asserting plaintiffs failed to present a government tort claim within six months as required by the Government Claims Act; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed those claims.
- Central statutory tension: Gov. Code §905(m) (exception for childhood sexual‑assault claims) vs. §935 (authorizing local entities to prescribe procedures for claims otherwise excepted) and local district regulations requiring six‑month claim presentation.
- While the appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted SB 1053 (clarifying §935 does not apply to §905(m) claims) and AB 218 (substantially amending Code Civ. Proc. §340.1 and expressly reviving time‑barred childhood sexual‑assault claims, including those barred by claim‑presentation deadlines).
- The court concluded AB 218’s revival provisions require reversal as to E.D. (remand for further proceedings) but affirmed dismissal as to Coats because her third‑party emotional‑distress claims fall outside the §905(m) exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §905(m) exempts E.D.’s childhood sexual‑assault causes of action from local claim‑presentation rules | E.D.: §905(m) exempts childhood sexual‑assault claims from government claim presentation; no six‑month filing required | District: §935 authorizes local rules (and its board policy/regulation applies), so claim filing was prerequisite | Judgment reversed as to E.D.; remanded — court relied on AB 218 revival and did not need to resolve §935 question on the merits |
| Whether AB 218 revives claims previously barred by claim‑presentation deadlines and is constitutionally permissible | Plaintiffs: AB 218 revives claims barred by claim‑presentation deadlines, so E.D.’s action proceeds | District: Retroactive revival raises ex post facto and due process problems; treble damages/extended limits are punitive | Held applicable and constitutional as applied to E.D.; AB 218 expressly revives claims barred by claim presentation deadlines, so E.D.’s claims proceed |
| Whether §905(m) exception covers Coats’s third‑party emotional‑distress claims | Coats: Her emotional‑distress damages are "as a result of" the child’s sexual assault and thus within §905(m) | District: Coats is not a direct victim under §340.1; §905(m) applies only to plaintiffs proceeding under §340.1 (direct victims) | Held: Affirmed — Coats’s claims are barred for failure to file a timely government claim because §905(m) does not encompass her third‑party claims |
| Whether §935 authorizes local six‑month filing requirements for §905(m) claims | Plaintiffs: §935 does not permit local circumvention of §905(m) policy | District: §935 permits local procedures for claims excepted by §905, including local filing requirements | Not decided on merits: appellate court did not resolve conflict because AB 218’s revival rendered the question unnecessary for E.D.; trial court’s ruling on §935 was effectively superseded for E.D. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007) (failure to present timely government claim can bar revived childhood‑sexual‑abuse claims)
- Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1, 3 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2017) (discusses §905(m) enactment in response to Shirk and policy balancing underlying claims statutes)
- A.M. v. Ventura Unified School Dist., 3 Cal.App.5th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (interpreting §905(m) exemption for direct childhood‑sexual‑abuse claims)
- Big Oak Flat‑Groveland Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.5th 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (addressed §935/§905(m) interplay; decision later vacated for reconsideration in light of SB 1053)
- Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 128 Cal.App.4th 1155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rejects ex post facto challenge to revival of time‑barred civil claims)
- Liebig v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.3d 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (Legislature may revive time‑barred civil causes of action)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (retroactivity analysis; potential constitutional concerns for retroactive imposition of new punitive remedies)
- Steven F. v. Anaheim Union High Sch. Dist., 112 Cal.App.4th 904 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (limits on third‑party parental emotional‑distress recovery where school lacked knowledge or outrageous conduct)
- Phyllis P. v. Superior Court, 183 Cal.App.3d 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (parental emotional‑distress recovery where school withheld knowledge of molestation and foreseeably worsened harm)