What SB 131 Changed for Child Sexual Abuse Claims in CA

California Senate Bill 131, signed in 2013, was the first state law to let survivors of childhood sexual abuse sue the schools, churches, and other organizations that failed to protect them even when the ordinary filing deadline had already run. It did that by opening a one-year revival window beginning January 1, 2014 for claims against third-party institutions. The statute SB 131 helped shape, Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1, has since been rewritten twice, and today it imposes no time limit at all on civil claims for childhood sexual assault.¹

What SB 131 Changed in 2013

Before SB 131, a survivor could sue the individual abuser under California’s delayed discovery rule, but claims against the institutions that enabled the abuse faced a much shorter deadline. A revival window the legislature had opened in 2002 applied only to suits against perpetrators themselves, which left most organizations shielded from older claims.

SB 131, authored by Senator Jim Beall, closed that gap. It retroactively applied the existing third-party statute of limitations and opened a one-year revival window running through 2014 for institutional claims that had already expired.² The bill also gave plaintiffs the right to conduct discovery before a court could rule on a motion challenging whether the organization knew about the abuse. That procedural change mattered. Institutions routinely argued there was no evidence they knew about a predator, and without discovery, survivors had no way to pull the internal records that would prove otherwise. The 2014 window was used most heavily against the Catholic Church and other religious organizations, producing a wave of settlements in cases that had been locked out of the courts for decades.

How the Law Has Changed Since

The SB 131 window closed at the end of 2014, and the statute of limitations reverted for several years to its prior rule: survivors had until age 26, or three years from discovering the connection between their psychological injuries and the childhood abuse, whichever came later.

That changed in 2019 with AB 218, which rewrote CCP 340.1 in several important ways. AB 218 pushed the ordinary deadline to age 40 or five years from discovery, and it opened a three-year revival window running from January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. Unlike SB 131’s narrower window, the AB 218 revival covered both individual perpetrators and institutions, and it waived the government claims presentation deadline that had previously blocked suits against public school districts and county agencies.³ AB 218 also changed the statutory language from “childhood sexual abuse” to “childhood sexual assault” and added treble damages for institutional cover-ups.

Later amendments went further still. The current version of CCP 340.1 states that there is no time limit for filing a civil action to recover damages for childhood sexual assault.¹ California is now one of the most permissive states in the country for survivors seeking civil damages, no matter how many years have passed.

Who Can File a Claim Today

Under the current statute, a survivor can file at any time, in three distinct categories of claim:

A direct claim against the perpetrator.
A claim against any person or entity that owed the plaintiff a duty of care and whose wrongful or negligent act was a legal cause of the assault.
A claim against any person or entity whose intentional act was a legal cause of the assault.

“Childhood sexual assault” is defined broadly as any act against a person under 18 that would have violated specified sections of the California Penal Code, including sexual conduct with a minor, lewd acts with a child, incest, and child exploitation.¹ The definition reaches essentially any sexual contact or exploitation involving a minor.

Who Can Be Held Liable

The reach of SB 131 and its successor legislation lies in extending liability past the individual abuser. Schools, churches, youth sports leagues, foster care agencies, and other organizations that supervised children can all face suit if their negligence or intentional conduct was a legal cause of the abuse. A plaintiff does not have to prove the organization committed the assault, only that its failure to act contributed to it.

In practice, institutional claims tend to involve allegations that an organization hired someone with a known history of misconduct, failed to supervise employees or volunteers around children, ignored complaints or warning signs, or transferred a known abuser to a new position with access to minors. School districts across California have collectively faced nearly $3 billion in claims, with individual settlements commonly in the $5 million to $10 million range and some jury verdicts going higher.

Treble Damages for Cover-Ups

One of the most consequential provisions AB 218 added lets a survivor recover up to three times actual damages if the assault resulted from a cover-up. The statute defines a cover-up as a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.¹

The provision changes the financial math for institutions. An organization that simply failed to screen an employee faces ordinary compensatory damages. One that actively destroyed records, silenced witnesses, reassigned a known predator, or pressured a victim’s family to stay quiet can be hit with triple that amount. A jury finding of cover-up can turn a multi-million dollar verdict into something three times larger, which gives institutions a strong reason to settle.

Suing Public Schools and Other Government Entities

Before AB 218, suing a public school district, county agency, or other government body for childhood abuse first required filing a preliminary government tort claim within six months of discovering the injury. The California Supreme Court had held that this requirement applied even to childhood abuse claims with delayed discovery. Many survivors did not connect their adult psychological injuries to the childhood abuse until long after that six-month window had closed.

AB 218 removed the obstacle by amending Government Code Section 905 to exempt childhood sexual assault claims from the government claims presentation requirement.³ The exemption applies retroactively to pending actions and to claims that would have been barred under the old rule. Survivors can now sue public school districts, county child welfare agencies, and other government bodies directly, without first filing a tort claim.

Certificate of Merit for Plaintiffs 40 and Older

A certificate of merit is not required for every childhood sexual assault lawsuit. It applies only when the plaintiff is 40 or older at the time of filing.¹ For those plaintiffs, two certificates must accompany the complaint:

An attorney certificate declaring that the lawyer reviewed the facts, consulted with a knowledgeable mental health practitioner, and concluded there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the lawsuit.
A certificate from a licensed mental health practitioner, who is not and has not been the plaintiff’s treating provider, declaring that they interviewed the plaintiff and believe there is a reasonable basis to conclude the plaintiff was subjected to childhood sexual assault.

A separate attorney certificate must be filed for each defendant named in the complaint. Failing to file the required certificates can expose the complaint to a demurrer or motion to strike, and the court can order the plaintiff or attorney to pay the defendant’s reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees.¹ Plaintiffs under 40 are not subject to the requirement.

One Boundary to Keep in Mind

The absence of a filing deadline does not mean a claim can always be pursued against a specific defendant. If an institution has filed for bankruptcy, all pending lawsuits against it are automatically paused by the federal bankruptcy stay, and the bankruptcy court then sets a bar date for claimants to file a proof of claim. Missing that bar date can permanently forfeit a survivor’s right to recover from that institution, no matter what CCP 340.1 says about limitations. Anyone with a claim against an organization known or rumored to be heading into bankruptcy should get advice quickly.

1
California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 340.1
2
California Legislative Information. SB 131 Senate Bill – Bill Analysis
3
LegiScan. Bill Text CA AB218 2019-2020 Regular Session Chaptered