California law may allow Concord survivors of sexual abuse or assault to bring a civil lawsuit for money damages against the abuser and, often, an institution that failed to protect them. These cases are generally filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez. The filing deadline depends on the survivor's age and the date of the abuse.
If you live in Concord and experienced sexual abuse or assault, as a child or as an adult, California law may allow a civil lawsuit for money damages against the person responsible and, in many cases, against an institution that failed to protect you. Concord cases are generally filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court in Martinez, and no police report is required.
Civil Claims for Sexual Abuse Survivors in Concord
A civil claim is a private lawsuit, and it is separate from a criminal case. In a criminal case, the District Attorney decides whether to prosecute, and the survivor is a witness. In a civil case, the survivor is the plaintiff, meaning the person who brings the lawsuit, and the survivor decides whether to file, whether to settle and whether to continue. A civil case does not send anyone to jail. It seeks money damages and a court finding of responsibility, from the perpetrator and from any organization whose failures allowed the abuse.
A civil claim does not require a police report, an arrest, a prosecution or a conviction, and California's adult assault statute says so expressly. A fuller comparison appears in our guide to civil vs. criminal sexual abuse cases.
California's Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Civil Claims
A statute of limitations is the legal deadline for filing a lawsuit. California has two main statutes for these claims, and which one applies depends on the survivor's age at the time and on the date of the abuse. The full statute text is available on leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
Childhood sexual abuse: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1. For abuse that occurred on or after January 1, 2024, California sets no time limit for a civil action against the perpetrator or against a person or entity whose negligent or intentional act was a legal cause of the abuse. That no-time-limit rule does not reach back to older abuse. For abuse that occurred on or before December 31, 2023, the law as it stood at the end of 2023 applies: a claim may generally be filed until the survivor's 40th birthday, or within five years of when the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that a later psychological injury or illness was caused by the abuse, whichever is later. That five-year period is the discovery rule: the clock can start when the connection is understood, not only when the abuse happened. A separate three-year revival window for older childhood claims closed on December 31, 2022.
Two other features of § 340.1 matter in practice. A plaintiff who is 40 or older when the case is filed must file certificates of merit, signed by the attorney and by a licensed mental health practitioner who is not treating the survivor. And where a survivor proves a defendant engaged in a "cover up," meaning a concerted effort to hide evidence of childhood sexual assault, the statute allows recovery of up to treble damages against that defendant, unless another law prohibits it.
Adult sexual assault: Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.16. For assault that occurred on or after the survivor's 18th birthday, the deadline is the later of 10 years from the last act, or three years from when the survivor discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, an injury or illness resulting from the assault. AB 2777 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 442), the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, added a revival window to this section: claims based on conduct on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred only because the deadline had passed may be filed until December 31, 2026. The window does not revive a claim litigated to finality before January 1, 2023, or one resolved by a written settlement agreement before that date.
Who Can Be Held Accountable in a Civil Sexual Abuse Case
The person who committed the abuse can be sued directly. In many cases the more significant defendant is an organization that employed or supervised that person: a school or school district, a church or religious organization, a youth sports or youth-serving program, a healthcare provider, a foster care agency, or an employer. California law expressly permits claims against "any person or entity" whose wrongful or negligent act was a legal cause of childhood sexual assault.
Two legal theories come up most often:
- Negligent hiring means an organization brought someone into a position of trust when it knew, or should have known, that the person posed a risk to the people in their care.
- Negligent supervision means an organization failed to reasonably oversee an employee, volunteer or the setting itself, and that failure allowed the abuse to happen or continue. A closely related theory, negligent retention, applies when an organization kept someone on after warning signs appeared.
Whether a specific organization is legally responsible depends on what it knew, what it was obligated to do and what it did.
Public entities, such as a school district or a county agency, follow some different rules. For childhood sexual abuse claims under § 340.1 against a local public entity, California law removes the usual requirement to present a written government claim before suing. Claims against the State of California work differently, so when a defendant may be public, establishing whether it is a local entity or the State is the first step.