84 Cal.App.5th 717
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (K.M., H.R., M.L.) sued Grossmont Union High School District after sexual abuse by drama teacher James Chatham; plaintiffs recovered compensatory damages at trial and jury apportioned fault 60% to Chatham / 40% to the District.
- Before trial the District received prior reports (custodian reports c.2010 and a 2011 parent e‑mail), documented the 2011 complaint and did a classroom visit; Chatham was placed on leave in 2014 after additional reports and later terminated.
- Plaintiffs’ operative complaints alleged negligence theories and sexual harassment under Civil Code §51.9; the trial court sustained the District’s demurrer to the §51.9 claims without leave to amend.
- In May 2018 the District made CCP §998 offers (not accepted); after trial the court ruled those offers invalid and taxed costs accordingly.
- After judgment the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 218 (amending CCP §340.1) to extend limitations, revive some claims, and add a treble‑damages provision for cover‑ups; plaintiffs sought retrial to pursue treble damages.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: treble damages under §340.1(b) are not retroactive and do not apply to public school districts (Gov. Code §818); §51.9 does not reach public school districts; and asserted trial errors were not prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP §340.1(b) treble damages apply retroactively to pre‑enactment conduct | AB 218 revives claims and plaintiffs should be allowed to seek newly available treble damages for prior cover‑ups | Treble provision is substantive, imposes new liability and lacks clear retroactive intent — applies prospectively only | Treble damages are prospective only; revival provisions explicitly reference subdivision (a) (statute of limitations) and not (b) (treble damages); no retroactivity. |
| Whether §340.1(b) treble damages apply to public school districts | Treble damages should attach to all defendants who covered up abuse, including districts | Gov. Code §818 bars awards that are primarily punitive against public entities; §340.1(b) is punitive in function | §340.1(b) is primarily punitive in purpose/operation and is precluded as to public entities by Gov. Code §818. |
| Whether Civil Code §51.9 (and remedies under §52) subjects the District to liability for teacher sexual harassment | §51.9’s reference to "person" includes corporations/public corporations; §52’s "whoever" provides an independent source of liability and attorney’s fees | §51.9 does not clearly extend to public school districts; other statutory schemes and precedent show courts should not expand private‑service remedies to public school districts | Demurrers properly sustained: public school districts are not within §51.9’s scope as a matter of statutory purpose and policy; §52 does not create independent liability that avoids this limitation. |
| Whether trial evidentiary and instruction rulings (friendship evidence, full bookmark list, certain witnesses, and erroneous oral CACI 406 inclusion of "Plaintiffs") require reversal/new trial | Exclusion/limits prevented jury from seeing cover‑up/grooming and lowered apportionment/damages; oral apportionment error prejudiced the verdict | The court exercised discretion on relevance/prejudice under Evid. Code §352; plaintiffs were able to present core evidence; oral misstatement was harmless because written instructions/verdict form controlled | No reversible error: evidentiary exclusions were within discretion and not prejudicial; the oral CACI 406 misstatement was harmless given correct written instructions, verdict form, and counsel arguments. |
| Whether the District’s CCP §998 offers were valid for purposes of costs | — (issue raised by District) | Offers required execution of a settlement and release without attaching or specifying its terms, leaving plaintiffs unable to evaluate acceptance | Offers invalid: requiring a settlement/release without attaching or specifying its terms (Sanford v. Rasnick reasoning) made §998 offers too uncertain, so the trial court correctly taxed costs against the District. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quarry v. Doe I, 53 Cal.4th 945 (Cal. 2012) (CCP §340.1 governs childhood sexual‑abuse limitations)
- McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 12 Cal.5th 213 (Cal. 2021) (presumption against retroactivity; look to function not form)
- Smith v. Superior Court / Mervyn’s line, 39 Cal.4th 223 (Cal. 2006) (retroactivity analysis; ‘‘function not form’’ inquiry)
- Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.3d 1188 (Cal. 1988) (statutory changes creating new liability are generally prospective)
- Department of Corrections v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 5 Cal.3d 885 (Cal. 1971) (discussing punitive vs. compensatory damages and Gov. Code §818 implications)
- Kizer v. County of San Mateo, 53 Cal.3d 139 (Cal. 1991) (punitive vs. regulatory/compensatory distinctions)
- Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation, 39 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 2006) (interpretation limiting application of private‑remedy statutes to public school districts where text/history/fiscal impact negative)
- C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist., 53 Cal.4th 861 (Cal. 2012) (vicarious liability and negligent hiring/supervision permitting public‑entity liability under Gov. Code §815.2 in appropriate pleadings)
- Tenet Healthcare Corp. v. C.R., 169 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (private hospital could be liable under §51.9; not a public‑entity decision)
- Brennon B. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.5th 662 (Cal. 2022) (public schools are not "business establishments" under Unruh Act; instructive on statutory scope for public schools)
- Sanford v. Rasnick, 246 Cal.App.4th 1121 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (a §998 offer requiring execution of an undisclosed settlement/release is invalid)
- Ignacio v. Caracciolo, 2 Cal.App.5th 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (party offering §998 must show offer’s validity)
- Berg v. Darden, 120 Cal.App.4th 721 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (specificity required in §998 offers; offeree may seek clarification but offeror bears obligation of certainty)
- Staffpro v. Elite Show Services, 119 Cal.App.4th 263 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (§998 purpose and enforceability principles)