Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Law Reviving Dead Causes of Action, Waiving Claim-Presentation Requirement Is Valid
Panel Sticks With Its View That Legislation Aiding Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse in Actions Against School Districts Does Not Constitute Gift of Public Funds
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Legislation that revived time-barred causes of action for childhood sexual abuse, as well as dispensing with the requirement of filing a claim against a public entity in suits against a school district, does not run contrary to the state constitutional bar against gifts of public funds, Div. Five of the First District Court of Appeal held yesterday, reaffirming a stance it took previously.
In an unpublished opinion by Presiding Justice Teri L. Jackson, the court reversed a judgment of dismissal that followed the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint filed by “Jane Doe” against the Acalanes Union High School District in Contra Costa County. The woman claims to have been sexually abused by her English teacher, Mark Christopher Litton, in 2007 and 2008 when she was age 17.
Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Danielle Douglas ruled that Assembly Bill 218, effective Jan. 1, 2020, runs afoul of Art. XVI, §6 of the state Constitution which provides that the Legislature lacks the “power to make any gift or authorize the making of any gift, of any public money or thing of value to any individual municipal, or other corporation whatever.”
Two Statutes Amended
In particular, AB 218 amended Code of Civil Procedure §340.1 to provide that actions for childhood sexual assault “that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitation” could be brought over the ensuing three-year period and Government Code §905 which exempted such causes of action from the usual claim-presentation requirement.”
Jackson pointed to her division’s published decision rendered last July 31 in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court. There, she said, “we unequivocally rejected” the same contention, remarking:
“Standing by our prior decision, we do the same here.”
Public Purpose
Jackson wrote:
“[E]ven if we concluded Assembly Bill No. 218’s retroactive waiver of the claim presentation requirement for claims arising prior to 2009 constituted a gift of public funds (we do not), the District’s challenge would still fail because any appropriation of public funds effectuated by this bill would serve a public purpose.”
That purpose, she said, is aiding victims of childhood sexual abuse.
She went on to say:
“The District circumvents this public purpose by emphatically arguing Assembly Bill No. 218 will force school districts to pay huge amounts to private litigants and their attorneys, leading to less money to hire and train teachers and less money to adopt security measures and implement practices to protect school communities. According to the District, the end result will be lower performing and less safe schools.
“The District raises policy issues which we decline to consider.”
The case is Doe v. Acalanes Union High School District, A169013.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company