W. Contra Costa Unified Sch. Dist. v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cty.

323 Cal.Rptr.3d 904

WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent;

A.M.M., Real Party in Interest.

A169314

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5.

Filed July 31, 2024

Trial Judge: Hon. John P. Devine, Trial Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. C22-02774)

Horvitz & Levy LLP, David M. Axelrad and Peder K. Batalden, Burbank; Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, Roy A. Combs, David R. Mishook, and Rami B. Noeil for Petitioner.

Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP, Edward L. Xanders, Los Angeles, and Alana Rotter for Schools Association for Excess Risk, Northern California Regional Liability Excess Fund, Southern California Regional Liability Excess Fund, and Statewide Association of Community Colleges as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Mark Bresee, Alyssa Ruiz de Esparza, La Jolla, and Juliana Duran; California School Boards Association, Kristin

Lindgren, Bode Owoyele, and Dana Scott for California School Boards Association and its Education Legal Alliance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Griffith & Thornburgh, LLP, Craig Price, Santa Barbara, Felicita A. Torres, and Austin S. Payne for Montecito Union School District and Carpinteria Unified School District as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Cole Huber LLP, Derek P. Cole, Roseville, for Schools Excess Liability Fund, California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, and Public Risk Innovations, Solutions, and Management as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Fozi Dwork & Modafferi, LLP, Daniel S. Modafferi, Carlsbad, for Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Lozano Smith, Sloan R. Simmons, Sacramento, and Adam M. Vasquez, Sacramento, for California Association of School Business Officials as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Matheny Sears Linkert & Jaime, LLP, Richard S. Linkert and Madison M. Simmons, Sacramento, for Schools Insurance Authority as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Miller Barondess, LLP, Mira Hashmall, Nadia A. Sarkis, Los Angeles, and Eleanor S. Ruth for County of Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP, David M. Huff, Los Angeles, Enrique M. Vassallo, JiEun Choi, and Julia A. Wolpert for Compton Unified School District as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Davis, Bengtson & Young, Eric J. Bengtson and Bruce D. MacLeod, San Jose, for East Side Union High School District, San Mateo Union High School District, Santa. Clara Unified School District, Oakland Unified School District, Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, Oak Grove School District, and Berryessa Union School District as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Boucher LLP, Raymond Boucher, Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Woodland Hills, and Amanda Walbrun; Esner, Chang, Boyer & Murphy, Holly N. Boyer for Real Party in Interest.

Alan Charles Dell’Ario, Napa; DeMarco Law Firm, Anthony M. DeMarco for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Public Justice, Sean Ouellette and Adele P. Kimmel for Public Justice, Child USA, Equal Rights Advocates, and National Center for Victims of Crime as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

SIMONS, J.

In 2019 the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 218 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2019, ch. 861, § 1) (AB 218), which provided a three-year window within which plaintiffs were permitted to bring childhood sexual assault claims against public entities that would otherwise be barred because of statutes of limitations or claim presentation requirements. Plaintiff and real party in interest A.M.M. (Plaintiff) subsequently relied on the enactment to file a complaint against defendant and petitioner West Contra Costa Unified School District (District) alleging she was the victim of sexual assaults by a District employee that began when she was 14 years old in 1979 and lasted until 1983.

The District demurred, arguing that reviving a claim that was formerly barred for failure to satisfy the claim presentation requirement would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds, in violation of article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution (the "gift clause"). The trial court overruled the demurrer, the District sought writ review, and this court issued an order to show cause. Before this court, the District also contends AB 218 violates its right to due process under both the federal and California Constitutions. We reject the District’s contentions.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her counselor at Richmond High School, within the District, between 1979 and 1983. Plaintiff further alleges that District employees were aware of the counselor’s conduct. In December 2022, Plaintiff filed her initial complaint, and in June 2023 she filed a second amended complaint asserting eight causes of action: (1) child sexual abuse; (2) sexual battery; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligence; (5) negligence per se; (6) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of an unfit employee; (7) negligent supervision of a minor; and (8) negligent failure to warn, train, or educate. The complaint states the action was brought pursuant to AB 218 and that the action is not barred due to any failure to present a claim to the District.

In August 2023, the District filed a demurrer on the ground that the gift clause prohibited the Legislature from retroactively reviving Plaintiff’s claims, as well as on other grounds. In October, the trial court sustained the demurrer to the first three causes of action with leave to amend, but overruled the demurrer to the extent it was based on the gift clause.¹

In December 2023, the District filed a petition in this court seeking issuance of a writ of mandate directing respondent Superior Court of Contra Costa County to sustain the demurrer in its entirety. In February 2024, this court issued an order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a return, and the District filed a reply.² This court also permitted Plaintiff to file a letter brief in response to a new state due process argument asserted by the District in its reply. Finally, this court granted requests by various entities to file 12 amicus curiae briefs, and Plaintiff and the District filed responses to the briefs.³

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Background

A. The Claim Presentation Requirement

Actions against a public entity "for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault" (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 340.1, 340.11)⁴ are subject to the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 905 et seq.) (GCA). The California Supreme Court has "described ‘the intent that illuminates section 340.1 as a whole’ as an aim ‘to expand the ability of victims of childhood sexual abuse to hold to account individuals and entities responsible for their injuries.’ " (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 758, 777, 308 Cal.Rptr.3d 822, 529 P.3d 1096 (Los Angeles Unified).) The Court explained, "Since its original enactment in 1986 [citation], the statute has been amended on multiple occasions to extend the filing periods for claims alleging childhood sexual assault and revive otherwise time-barred claims. [¶] One such amendment occurred through the enactment of [AB 218] in 2019. [Citation.] This revision made several changes to [ ]section 340.1. Among these adjustments, [AB 218] extended the time for filing claims for childhood sexual assault ([ ]§ 340.1, subds. (a), (c)) and created a revival window for lapsed claims (id., subd. (q)), which included relief from the claim presentation deadlines within the [GCA]." (Ibid.)

In particular, AB 218, which took effect January 1, 2020, revived claims for childhood sexual abuse, regardless of when the sexual abuse allegedly took place, for a three-year period that expired December 31, 2022. (Former § 340.1, subd. (q).) The statute expressly revived claims "that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired." (Ibid., emphasis added; see also Coats v. New Haven Unified Sch. Dist. (2020) 46 Cal. App.5th 415, 424, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 784 (Coats).) Prior to the enactment of AB 218, former Government Code section 905, subdivision (m), exempted from the claim presentation requirement "[c]laims made pursuant to Section 340.1 .. for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual abuse" with one significant limitation: "[t]his subdivision shall apply only to claims arising out of conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2009." AB 218 removed that limitation, so Government Code section 905, subdivision (m) exempts all claims based on childhood sexual assault from the claim presentation requirement. (See Coats, at p. 424, 259 Cal.Rptr.3d 784.)

[1, 2] The District challenges this retroactive, statutory waiver of the claim presentation requirement. "For many decades before" the 1963 enactment of the GCA, "tort liability for public entity defendants was barred by a common law rule of governmental immunity." (Quigley v. Garden Valley Fire Prot. Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798, 803, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 548, 444 P.3d 688 (Quigley).) The GCA "sets forth the general rule of immunity for public entities," " ‘abolish[ing] all common law or judicially declared forms of liability for public entities, except for such liability as may be required by the state or federal constitution,’ " or " ‘if a statute … is found declaring them to be liable.’ " (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 1034, 1045, 310 Cal.Rptr.3d 130, 531 P.3d 951.) Thus, the GCA "is a comprehensive statutory scheme governing the liabilities and immunities of public entities and public employees for torts." (Quigley, at p. 803, 249 Cal.Rptr.3d 548, ...