CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS AB 218 LOOKBACK PROVISIONS

West Contra Costa Unified School District v. The Superior Court of Contra Costa County – California Court of Appeal, First District (Case No. A169314)

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: West Contra Costa Unified School District

IMPORTANCE OF STATEWIDE ISSUE:

Assembly Bill 218 (2019) was enacted with a “lookback provision” that, between January 2020 and December 2022, allowed alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse from any time period before Jan. 1, 2009, to file suit for money damages against public agencies, including school districts and county offices of education, without having to comply with the Government Torts Claim Act. Based on this retroactive expansion, many districts up and down the state were sued for childhood sexual abuse claims dating back years and even decades before 2009, and are now working to challenge and somehow defend against oftentimes very old claims and the broad power that AB 218 has provided to plaintiffs.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE:
West Contra Costa Unified School District (District) has been the subject of at least three complaints filed based on AB 218’s lookback provisions for sexual abuse alleged to have occurred between 1971 and 1983. The District has been successful in getting the complaint dismissed in one of the cases but not in the other two, even though the cases were filed in the same court. They were heard by different superior court judges who reached different rulings on the same legal theory. The determination made by Judge John P. Devine of the Contra Costa County Superior Court in the District’s cases that serve as the basis for the requests for Writ of Mandate represents one perspective. Specifically, Judge Devine held that AB 218 is constitutional and does not represent a gift of public funds. In the same court, Contra Costa County Superior Court, the District received a different decision from Judge Danielle K. Douglas. In a comprehensive and thorough ruling, Judge Douglas ruled that AB 218 is unconstitutional because it contravenes Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution through the retroactive imposition of liability where there previously was none through retroactive lifting of the tort claim requirement, which constitutes a gift of public funds. These contradictory conclusions by the same court (on the same exact issue) leave the District in a precarious position as it continues to litigate the claims made against it.
APPELLATE COURT DECISION AND ELA INVOLVEMENT:
Because of the contradictory rulings in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, the District petitioned the First District Court of Appeals to accept two Writs of Mandate and make a definitive ruling on the conflicting decisions that create confusion about the constitutionality of AB 218 and the potential damages available to plaintiffs.

On Feb. 6, 2024, and Feb. 9, 2024, the ELA filed letters of amicus curiae with the First District Court of Appeals in support of the petitions for Writ of Mandate in both cases for which the District is seeking action from the appellate court. The letters, filed in different departments of the same court, summarized the conflicting decisions outlined previously and requests that the court provide clarity with one legal theory that the District can rely on, rather than the multiple that currently exist. The letters also described the implications that AB 218 has for school districts and county offices of education throughout California when litigating these matters. Policy considerations such as lack of records and witnesses related to specific claims and an inability to determine the details of insurance coverage at a specific time were all described for the court’s consideration. In addition, the letters offered support and rationale for why the determination that AB 218 is an unconstitutional gift of public funds is correct. They endorsed Judge Douglas’ rationale used to determine that no public purpose was served by the elimination of the claim presentation requirement, a substantive requirement rather than procedural one, and requested any additional analysis in support of that conclusion. Judge Douglas’ determination of the legislative intent behind AB 218 as purely a way to compensate individual plaintiffs rather than serve a public purpose, which is in alignment with the District’s arguments, is also endorsed in the letter.

The court accepted one of the positions for the Writ of Mandate, and the ELA filed its amicus brief April 11, 2024. The amicus brief included the arguments the ELA made in its letters in support of the Writ and included a summary of the numerous AB 218 cases throughout the state. Due to the efforts of the ELA and school districts, the Legislature, in the budget trailer bill (SB 153, SEC. 104), requires the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to provide recommendations on new, existing or strengthened funding and financing mechanisms that school districts, county offices of education and other local agencies could utilize in financing judgments or settlements arising from claims of childhood sexual abuse.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:
On July 31, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued its decision in West Contra Costa USD v. Superior Court. West Contra Costa is the first appellate decision analyzing whether AB 218’s elimination of the Government Claims Act’s (GCA) claims-presentation requirement makes an unconstitutional “gift of public funds” by creating new, retroactive liability against public agencies, including LEAs. The court found that, while eliminating the claims-presentation requirement exposed LEAs to damages for previously barred claims, this did not create a new “liability” since liability for sexual assault existed well before AB 218’s passage and independently of the GCA. Rather, according to the court, the bill “simply waived a condition the state had imposed on its consent to suit.” The court relied on an 1894 case, Chapman v. State, and language and interpretation of the Tort Claims Act for its holding on this issue. Specifically, the court stated that the claims-presentation requirement does not impose substantive liability, which was a key component of the District’s argument.

The court also found that, even if AB 218 were a “gift,” it would still be permissible because it serves a public purpose; namely, benefiting the victims of childhood sexual assault. The court noted that whether a gift of public funds is for a public purpose is primarily a determination of the Legislature that will not be disturbed by the courts so long as it has a reasonable basis. The court relied on the legislative history to determine the Legislature’s determination of a public purpose and then held that the Legislature’s determination had a reasonable basis. The court noted that courts have regularly concluded that expenditures on behalf of disadvantaged groups — here, victims of childhood sexual assault — can serve a public purpose. The court cited to other instances of the Legislature assisting other disadvantaged groups that were upheld as constitutional public purposes.

The court also dismissed the policy arguments made by the ELA and other amici, holding that those policy arguments were for the Legislature to address when enacting bills, which it did in this case, and not the courts.

The District filed a petition seeking review by the California Supreme Court, which was supported by the ELA via letter. However, the Supreme Court declined review on October 30, 2024.

Back to Report