Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1
221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 761
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Rubenstein, plaintiff, alleges sexual abuse by a public-entity employee (coach) in 1993–1994 while she was a student.
- She filed a government claim in 2012 alleging damages and then sued in Imperial County.
- The government-claims deadline required timely presentation of a claim before suing the public entity.
- Court of Appeal held the 2012 claim timely; Supreme Court reverses, concluding the claim was untimely.
- Central issue: whether Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 creates a new accrual date or simply tolls accrual for claims against public entities.
- Legislature later enacted Gov. Code § 905(m) in 2008–2009, exempting childhood-sexual-abuse claims from government-claims requirements prospectively for conduct after Jan. 1, 2009.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §340.1 delay or toll accrual for public-entity claims? | Rubenstein argues §340.1 delays accrual to discovery of adult injury. | Rubenstein contends accrual is delayed, not resurrected, for claims against public entities. | §340.1 delays accrual; does not create a new accrual date for government claims. |
| Does Government Code §901 link accrual to private-action accrual for claims against public entities? | Government claims accrual mirrors private-law accrual (late discovery). | Accrual is tied to the ripeness/earlier time, not new discovery timing. | Accrual remains the time of the alleged abuse, not deferred by discovery, for purposes of claims against public entities. |
| Did §905(m) apply to Rubenstein’s pre-2009 conduct? | Legislative change shows protection for public entities regarding old claims. | §905(m) applies prospectively to post-2009 conduct and does not revive pre-2009 claims. | §905(m) does not resurrect pre-2009 claims; 2012 claim for 1993–1994 conduct remains untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (2007) (public-entity claim timing under government-claims statute; revival limits)
- Quarry v. Doe I, 53 Cal.4th 945 (2012) (delayed discovery and section 340.1 interpretation; revival statute context)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (2005) (accrual and limitations concepts; context for 340.1 discussion)
- Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., 22 Cal.4th 1127 (2000) (accrual timing under 340.2 for asbestos; separate accrual rule)
- V.C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 139 Cal.App.4th 499 (2006) (section 340.1 accrual treated as not creating new accrual date)
- Cuadra v. Millan, 17 Cal.4th 855 (1998) (distinction between tolling and accrual postponement)