AB 218 Lookback Provisions

MEMBER(S) INVOLVED: Merced City School District

Over several years, successive legislation has relaxed or suspended limitations on the filing of childhood sexual abuse claims seeking monetary damages against school districts, county offices of education and other institutions entrusted with the care and supervision of children. One such legislation, Assembly Bill 218 (2019), eventually removed all limitations for any such act occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2024. AB 218 also opened a “lookback window” between January 2020 and December 2022 for the filing of childhood sexual abuse claims for acts that occurred prior to AB 218 becoming law. More importantly, AB 218’s lookback window retroactively permitted alleged victims of such acts to file their claims without having to comply with the claims presentation requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act, thereby reviving claims that would have otherwise been legally barred. Based on this retroactive expansion, many districts throughout the state were sued for childhood sexual abuse claims dating back years and even decades 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:

The Superior Court in Merced County sustained a demurrer in favor of the Merced City School District after the plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to childhood sexual abuse by a district principal from 1965 to 1969. The Superior Court accepted the district’s arguments that the plaintiff’s claim was time barred because he failed to file a Government Claim with the district within the then-applicable claims period and that, though the Government Claims Act was amended by AB 218 to retroactively excuse any claims-presentation requirements, such action would create a liability for the district that did not exist at the time of AB 218’s passage, thereby constituting a constitutionally impermissible gift of public funds. The district’s arguments mirror those made by other school districts throughout the state, and for which ELA has previously approved amicus support.

CURRENT STATUS AND/OR OUTCOME:

On plaintiff’s appeal of the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint, ELA filed an amicus brief in support of the district and urged the court of appeal to affirm the dismissal of the complaint. The ELA’s brief focused on the significant deleterious impact AB 218 has on the fiscal stability of school districts through its retroactive elimination of substantive elements of extinguished claims and the creation of potential liability where none existed.

On Aug. 18, 2025, the court of appeal found in favor of the plaintiff and reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the Government Claims Act was simply the mechanism by which the state could waive procedural immunity, rather than a substantive element of a cause of action against a public entity. The court also held that AB 218’s retroactive waiver of the Government Claims Act requirement was not a gift, prohibited under the gift clause, but was constitutionally permissible, as it serves a public purpose. The case will be returned to the Superior Court for trial.