West Contra Costa Unified School Dist. v. Super. Ct., 103 Cal.App.5th 1243

Plaintiff A.M.M. alleges she was sexually assaulted by a counselor employed by West Contra Costa Unified School District (the District) from 1979 to 1983; District employees were allegedly aware of this conduct.
In 2019, California enacted AB 218, creating a three-year window (expiring December 31, 2022) during which previously time-barred childhood sexual assault claims, including those barred by public entity claim presentation requirements, could be brought.
Plaintiff filed suit in 2022 under AB 218, making various tort claims against the District, specifically relying on AB 218's waiver of the government claim presentation deadline.
The District demurred, arguing AB 218's retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement violated California's constitutional prohibition on gifts of public funds and its right to due process.
The trial court overruled the demurrer on the gift clause ground; the District then sought writ review.
Numerous amicus curiae briefs were filed; this opinion concerns whether AB 218’s claim revival violates the gift clause or due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement violate the California Constitution's bar on gifts of public funds?	AB 218 merely removes a procedural bar; liability existed at the time of alleged acts.	Waiver gifts public funds because it revives otherwise extinguished liabilities.	No violation; waiver is procedural, not a creation of new substantive liability.
Does AB 218 serve a valid public purpose (if the waiver is a "gift")?	It provides access to justice for a disadvantaged class of abuse victims.	No valid public purpose; reviving unenforceable claims is not in the public interest.	AB 218 serves a public purpose by supporting victims and addressing institutional abuse.
Are statutes of limitation and public entity claim deadlines meaningfully different for gift clause analysis?	Both are procedural, not substantive bars, so can be revived.	Claim deadlines extinguish liability; statutes of limitation don’t—thus, not analogous.	Differences are immaterial for gift clause purposes; both are procedural barriers.
Does the District have standing to assert due process arguments against AB 218?	(N/A – Plaintiff did not raise standing)	As a public entity, District is entitled to due process protections.	District lacks standing; public entities cannot assert due process rights against state.

Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.5th 758 (Cal. 2023) (explains legislative intent to expand remedies for victims of childhood sexual abuse)
Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Prot. Dist., 7 Cal.5th 798 (Cal. 2019) (distinguishes substantive liability from procedural conditions for suing public entities)
Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist., 42 Cal.4th 201 (Cal. 2007) (claim presentation requirement is procedural/condition precedent)
Rubenstein v. Doe No. 1, 3 Cal.5th 903 (Cal. 2017) (accrual of childhood sexual assault claim at time of wrongful act)
County of Alameda v. Carleson, 5 Cal.3d 730 (Cal. 1971) (legislative determination of public purpose given deference)
Chapman v. State, 104 Cal. 690 (Cal. 1894) (waiver of procedural bars to pending claims does not violate gift clause if substantive liability already existed)
Bickerdike v. State, 144 Cal. 681 (Cal. 1904) (waiving statute of limitations is not a gift)
Star–Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 42 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1986) (public entities lack standing to assert due process claims against the state)