New law reopens statute of limitations for sex assault suits

California will once again reopen a statute of limitations window for filing claims over old sexual assault allegations.

AB 250, signed Monday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, establishes a two-year window in 2026 and 2027 for adult survivors of sexual assault to file civil petitions that would otherwise be time-barred. Written by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters, the measure applies to cases alleging not only assault but also that an entity participated in a cover-up of prior accusations against the perpetrator. The law applies only to private sector defendants.

"AB 250 gives those who've been silenced by intimidation, shame or institutional cover-ups another shot at justice, because survivors deserve to be heard, believed and supported--not ignored by the system meant to protect them," Aguiar-Curry said in a statement.

Attorneys who pursue these cases hailed Newsom's decision to sign the bill. In an email, Mike Finnegan, an attorney with Jeff Anderson & Associates, said the act "ensures that no matter how long ago the harm was done, survivors have the right to seek accountability and closure."

That is precisely the problem, said Kyla Christoffersen Powell, president and CEO of the Civil Justice Association of California. The group spent months arguing the bill could lead to business failures as defendants struggled to defend against complaints over allegations that are years or even decades old.

"Fairness and due process aren't partisan or sector-specific -- they're foundational to our civil justice system," Powell said in an email. "We've seen the massive negative impact these types of reviver bills have had on local governments, with the County of LA alone setting aside billions to deal with these lawsuits.

"AB 250 carves out the public sector this time, but once again small businesses, nonprofits, and other private employers will face the same crushing liability burdens associated with ancient cases in which witnesses and evidence are no longer available."

Powell was referring to concerns that some plaintiffs seeking payouts from a Los Angeles County settlement were allegedly paid by unscrupulous recruiters to join the litigation despite never having been abused in foster care facilities. Attorneys reached a $4 billion settlement with the county in April to resolve 6,800 claims dating back to 1959.

That case is the largest example of the fiscal strain facing local governments across California since the Legislature passed AB 218 in 2019. The law opened a three-year window, from 2020 through 2022, for previously time-barred claims and have since driven five Catholic dioceses in the state into Chapter 11 protection as they confronted more than 1,000 older cases.

"This has become a trend here and in New York and maybe a couple of other jurisdictions over the last few years," said Anthony J. Oncidi, a partner and chair of the West Coast Labor & Employment Group with Proskauer in Los Angeles. "The problem with any extension of a statute of limitations, especially one that has already run, is that witnesses for the defense are no longer available, may not even be alive, and documents are no longer available."

In legislative debates, Aguiar-Curry said she would have preferred to include public entities but said politically it was a nonstarter amid the wave of fiscal distress hitting local governments. However, groups representing local government stayed out of the public fight over AB 250.

The new law aims to cover claims that may have fallen outside AB 218's window, particularly in cases where abusers were previously shielded by an organized cover-up. It allows survivors to revive claims against both perpetrators and private entities such as corporations or associations, even if a cover-up cannot be alleged against a specific organization. The measure also clarifies that failing to plead a cover-up against one entity does not bar claims against others. Although public entities are excluded from the revival provisions, the bill specifies they have no duty to indemnify individual perpetrators.

Lawmakers added this detail to resolve problems that emerged under AB 2777, a 2022 statute that created a filing window through next year for claims involving alleged cover-ups. After it took effect in 2023, plaintiffs filed numerous cases under that law, including those against high-profile defendants such as actor Bill Cosby and rock drummer Tommy Lee.

Many of those cases stalled in court when judges paused or dismissed them over ambiguous language about the evidence required to prove a cover-up and who could be held liable.

Oncidi said he is advising clients to do what they can by addressing their document retention and non-disclosure agreement practices. He especially pointed to the idea that non-disclosure agreements have been cited in some recent cases as being part of a larger cover-up.

"We're telling clients that if they do have a non-disclosure agreement that they should include the possibility of having an employee have an opt-out with respect to either sexual assault claims or other claims that might otherwise be covered by these extensions," he said.