Lawmakers consider another extension to file old sex abuse cases

California lawmakers advanced two more bills on Tuesday that would extend the civil statute of limitations in old sexual assault cases. Both passed, despite objections from insurers and others that it is nearly impossible to defend against decades-old claims.

"The tough-on-crime era in California at its height had more than 130,000 youth locked up in jails and counties juvenile facilities," Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, said to the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. "Many of these individuals have come forward as adults to share their experiences of sexual assault perpetuated by employees of these county juvenile camps."

Wicks added that 18 people have faced criminal charges for sexual assault at these facilities and 10 have been convicted -- showing how "widespread" the problem is. Her bill, AB 2693, which would create a one-year window during 2025 for any civil sexual assault claim originating in a county youth lock up. It passed easily with no formal opposition. One committee member, Assemblymember Eloise Gomez Reyes, D-San Bernardino, said she would have supported a longer window.

Opponents, meanwhile, came out against a tougher bill -- which also passed. AB 2587 creates a two-year window in 2025 and 2026 for plaintiffs to bring some civil claims related to alleged assaults involving a private entity such as an employer or a school. It specifies cases of sexual assault, particularly those where staff attempted to cover up the crimes.

"Unfortunately, and far too often, the trauma from sexual assault is compounded by a culture of cover ups," said that bill's author, Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Davis. "AB 2587 will clarify that a perpetrator of a sexual assault and the entity that covered up or willfully ignored the assault will be held accountable."

Neither bill would apply to any cases that have been concluded with a court proceeding or a settlement before Jan. 1, 2025. But a coalition of insurers and other groups oppose AB 2587. In an opposition letter, they objected to public entities being omitted from the legislation, and cited lawmakers repeatedly adjusting these limits.

"Our opposition is really focused on the broad drafting of the bill and these defendants' inability to actually defend against these revived cases where evidence has disappeared," Jaime Huff with the Civil Justice Association of California told the committee during the hearing. "We have significant concerns about disregarding a key element of the civil justice system, which is meant to protect the accuracy and reliability of decisions and safeguard due process. Statutes of limitations are not based on the heinousness of a defendant's alleged conduct or the seriousness of a plaintiff's injury. They are based on the needs of the judicial system to properly decide cases based on accurate evidence."

A series of recent laws have led to a flood of civil cases, some of them alleging assaults from decades ago. A Sacramento Superior Court judge is currently hearing consolidated cases from hundreds of current and former female prison inmates. Meanwhile, four Catholic Diocese in California have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the past year in the face of hundreds of revived cases from adults abused by priests when they were children.