A woman (A.M.M.) alleged that between 1979 and 1983, while she was a student at West Contra Costa Unified School District, her then high school counselor repeatedly sexually assaulted her. She alleged that the District was aware of the counselor’s abuse but did nothing to stop it.
In 2019, the California state legislature enacted AB 218. AB 218 significantly expanded the legal recourse available to victims of childhood sexual abuse by extending the statute of limitations for filing claims. The law also provided a three-year “revival window” from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2022. During this period, survivors of childhood sexual assault could bring claims against individuals, private institutions, or public entities, even if the claims were otherwise barred by statutes of limitations or claim presentation deadlines under the Government Claims Act. Under the Government Claims Act, individuals must file a claim with a public entity within a set time frame and meet specific claim presentation requirements before suing, giving the public entity a chance to investigate and resolve the issue before litigation.
A.M.M. used AB 218’s revival window to sue the District. The District filed a demurrer with the trial court, asking it to dismiss the case. The District argued that AB 218 violated the California Constitution’s gift clause. The gift clause bars the Legislature from giving public money or property to individuals or private entities without a valid public purpose. The District argued that because the law gave sexual abuse survivors something they did not have before—the right to sue in court—it gave them an unconstitutional “gift.” The District also contended that AB 218 violated its right to due process under state and federal law.
The trial court rejected the District’s argument that AB 218 violated the gift clause and overruled the demurrer. The District appealed.
The court of appeal agreed with the trial court. The court of appeal explained that the gift clause does not prohibit expenditures of public funds for a public purpose, and the Legislature has the discretion to determine what constitutes a public purpose. The court of appeal found that AB 218 served a legitimate public purpose by allowing victims of childhood sexual assault to hold responsible parties accountable. The court of appeal emphasized that AB 218 did not create new liability for the District. Rather, it removed procedural hurdles, like the claim presentation requirement, which the state had previously required for lawsuits.
The court of appeal rejected the District’s due process argument. It ruled that the District lacked standing to assert due process claims. Citing Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986), the court of appeal reaffirmed the rule that political subdivisions, such as school districts, cannot challenge state actions under the due process clauses. The court of appeal explained that, as a political entity created by the state, the District cannot invoke due process protections to challenge state laws.
The court of appeal denied the District’s petition for writ of mandate, upholding the trial court’s decision to allow A.M.M.’s claims to proceed. The court awarded costs to A.M.M.
West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County, 103 Cal.App.5th 1243 (2024).