Institutional Sexual Abuse Lawsuits in California: A Complete Guide for Survivors

California law may allow a survivor of sexual abuse by someone connected to a school, church, youth program, foster care placement or other organization to sue the organization itself, not only the abuser. The deadline depends on age and abuse date, and many survivors still have time to bring a claim, even years later. Reviewed for Justice for Survivors.

If you were sexually abused by someone connected to a school, church, youth program, foster care placement or other organization, California law may allow you to sue the organization itself, not only the person who did it. These are civil lawsuits for money damages, and many survivors still have time to bring one, even years later.

This guide is written for a person who experienced sexual abuse in an institutional setting, as a child or as an adult, and is trying to understand, often privately and for the first time, whether the law can do anything about it. Many survivors do not connect what happened to them with a legal claim until long afterward, sometimes decades. California's Legislature has written that reality into its deadlines, and the rules that follow reflect it. By the end of this page you will know how institutional claims work in California, which deadlines apply depending on when the abuse happened and how old you were, what changes when the defendant is a public entity, what evidence matters, what the process looks like, and what the law allows a survivor to seek. Nothing here asks you to decide anything, and nothing here replaces a private conversation about your own facts.

Three facts frame everything below. Childhood sexual assault claims are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, and the deadline depends on whether the abuse happened before or after January 1, 2024. Adult sexual assault claims are governed by section 340.16, which includes a revival window open until December 31, 2026 for certain older claims. And when the defendant is a government body, a separate set of claim rules may or may not apply, depending on the type of claim and the type of entity.

Table of contents

• What an Institutional Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Is
• California's Statute of Limitations for Institutional Abuse Claims
• Who Can Be Held Liable, Beyond the Individual Abuser
• How California's AB 218 and AB 2777 Changed the Legal Landscape
• The Civil Lawsuit Process: What Survivors Can Expect
• What Survivors Can Recover in a California Institutional Abuse Lawsuit
• Proving an Institutional Abuse Claim: Evidence and Challenges
• Specific Institutional Contexts in California
• Government Entity Defendants: The Claims Act Requirement
• Bankruptcy Trusts and Mass Settlement Programs
• Common Myths and Misconceptions About Institutional Abuse Lawsuits
• Support Resources for Survivors in California
• Frequently asked questions
• Related topics
• If You Would Like to Talk Through Your Situation, Privately
• Sources

What an Institutional Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Is

An institutional sexual abuse lawsuit is a civil case brought by a survivor against an organization whose employee, volunteer or agent committed sexual abuse, on the theory that the organization's own conduct helped make the abuse possible or failed to stop it. The person who committed the abuse can be named too. What makes the case "institutional" is that the organization is a defendant in its own right.

Civil cases and criminal cases are different systems

A criminal case is brought by the State of California, through a district attorney or the Attorney General. The prosecutor decides whether to file charges, what charges to bring, and whether to offer a plea. The survivor is a witness, not a party, and the possible outcomes are punishments such as prison or probation.

A civil case is brought by the survivor. The survivor, with their attorney, decides whether to file, whom to sue, whether to accept a settlement, and whether to go to trial. The outcome is a money judgment or settlement paid to the survivor, not a punishment imposed by the State. The burden of proof is also different. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a civil claim generally requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely true than not.

These systems run independently. A survivor does not need a police report, a criminal charge, or a conviction to bring a civil claim. California's adult statute says so directly: section 340.16(b)(2) provides that it is "not necessary that a criminal prosecution or other proceeding have been brought," or, if one was brought, that it ended in a conviction. The same principle applies in practice to childhood claims. A fuller comparison is in our guide to civil and criminal abuse cases.

What "institutional" means in law

The word covers any organization that had a relationship with the person who caused harm and with the survivor. In California litigation, institutional defendants have included:

• Catholic dioceses and religious orders
• K-12 schools and school districts, public and private
• Youth sports clubs and their national governing bodies
• Scouting organizations
• Foster care agencies, group homes and county child welfare departments
• Juvenile halls and youth detention facilities
• Hospitals, clinics and medical groups
• Colleges and universities

Naming a category here is not a statement about any particular organization. Whether a specific institution is responsible depends on what it knew, what it did, and what the law required of it.

The four core legal theories, in plain English

Most institutional claims rest on one or more of these theories:

• Negligent hiring. The organization brought someone into a position of trust when it knew, or with reasonable care would have learned, that the person posed a risk.
• Negligent supervision. The organization failed to watch over the person or the setting with the care the situation required, including ignoring or mishandling warning signs.
• Negligent retention. The organization learned of a risk after hiring and kept the person in a role with access to children or vulnerable people anyway.
• Failure to report. Where the law required staff to report suspected child abuse and they did not, that failure can support a negligence claim.

Each theory is explained in more depth in the liability section below.

California's Statute of Limitations for Institutional Abuse Claims

A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. In California sexual abuse cases there is not one deadline. Which rule applies depends on two questions: how old the survivor was when the abuse happened, and on what date it happened. For many survivors, the answer is that a claim is still possible.

Childhood sexual assault: Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1

Section 340.1 governs claims for "childhood sexual assault," which the statute defines as listed acts committed when the plaintiff was under 18. Subdivision (a) now reads: "There is no time limit for the commencement of any of the following actions," and it lists three kinds of actions:

1. An action against the person who committed the assault.
2. An action against "any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault."
3. An action against any person or entity whose "intentional act" was a legal cause of the assault.

That language is broad, but it has a limit that matters a great deal. Subdivision (p), added by AB 452, applies the no-time-limit rule only to abuse that occurred on or after January 1, 2024. AB 452 did not revive older claims.

For abuse that occurred on or before December 31, 2023, the claim may be brought only under section 340.1 as it read on December 31, 2023. That earlier rule, set by AB 218, gives the survivor until the later of:

• their 40th birthday, or
• five years after they discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that a psychological injury or illness that occurred after age 18 was caused by the abuse.

The same deadline framework applies to the institution and to the individual perpetrator for pre-2024 abuse. The rules for each date range are set out in more detail in our guide to childhood sexual abuse claims.

Adult sexual assault: Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16

For sexual assault that happened on or after the survivor's 18th birthday, section 340.16 sets the deadline as the later of:

• 10 years from the date of the last act, attempted act, or assault with intent to commit an act of sexual assault, or
• three years from the date the survivor "discovers or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from" the assault.

Separately, section 340.16(b)(3), written by AB 2777, revives certain adult claims that had already expired. That window is open until December 31, 2026. It is explained in its own section below.

The discovery rule, in plain English

The discovery rule means the clock may start not on the date of the abuse, but on the date the survivor connected a harm in their life, such as depression, anxiety or difficulty in relationships, to the abuse that caused it. The law recognizes that the effects of abuse can surface or become understood long after the events themselves. A survivor who made that connection only recently may have a later deadline than the calendar alone would suggest.

Public-entity defendants have their own procedural rules

When the defendant is a government body, such as a public school district, a county, or a state agency, California's Government Claims Act may require a written claim to be presented to the entity before a lawsuit is filed. Under Gov. Code section 945.4, where a claim is required, no suit may be brought until it has been presented and acted on or deemed rejected. Where it applies, the claim deadline is generally far shorter than the civil statute of limitations. Childhood sexual assault claims are treated differently, and in many cases are exempt. That detail is covered in the Government Claims Act section below.

Why every deadline is fact-specific

The correct deadline can turn on the date of the abuse, the survivor's age, when the survivor connected their injuries to it, whether the defendant is a private organization, a local public entity or the State, and whether any earlier case or settlement exists. A short guide cannot resolve those questions for a particular person. A confidential review of the dates, without any need to describe the abuse itself, is the reliable way to know. Our guide to the California statute of limitations goes deeper into each date range.

Who Can Be Held Liable, Beyond the Individual Abuser

Institutions do not act on their own. They act through the people who run them: administrators, principals, supervisors, clergy leadership, board members. When those people hire carelessly, ignore warning signs, move a known risk to a new post, or stay silent when the law requires them to speak, California law allows the survivor to sue the organization for its own failures. This is often where accountability for what happened actually sits.

Respondeat superior, and why it is usually not the main theory

Respondeat superior (Latin for "let the master answer") is the doctrine that makes an employer responsible for wrongs an employee commits within the scope of employment. California courts have generally treated sexual abuse as outside the scope of a perpetrator's job, so this doctrine usually does not make a private institution automatically liable for the abuse itself.

That is why institutional cases focus on the organization's own negligence. The question is not only "what did the employee do" but "what did the institution know, and what did it do about it."

Public entities are a partial exception in structure. Under Gov. Code section 815.2(a), a public entity "is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment." In practice, this often means a school district or county is liable for the negligence of its supervisors and administrators who failed to protect a child, because supervision is within the scope of their jobs. Subdivision (b) adds that, except as otherwise provided by statute, the entity is generally not liable where the employee is immune.

Negligent hiring

A negligent hiring claim asks whether the organization knew, or reasonably should have known, of a risk when it placed the person in a position of trust. Relevant facts can include prior complaints, gaps or red flags in employment history, inadequate background checks, and ignored references.

Negligent supervision

Negligent supervision asks whether the organization watched over its employee and its setting with reasonable care. This can include policies about adults being alone with children, overnight trips, closed-door meetings, and how prior concerns were investigated. A survivor does not need to prove that the institution intended harm, only that its supervision fell short and that the shortfall was a legal cause of the abuse.

Negligent retention

Negligent retention applies when an institution learned of a risk after hiring and kept the person in a role with access to children or vulnerable adults. Transferring someone to a new parish, school or team without addressing the risk is a familiar pattern in these cases.

Mandated reporting under CANRA

California's Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, found at Penal Code section 11165 and following, defines a "child" as "a person under the age of 18 years" and requires many professionals who work with children, such as teachers, clergy, coaches in many settings, health care workers and social workers, to report suspected abuse to authorities. When a mandated reporter knew or suspected abuse and stayed silent, that failure can be evidence of negligence and can support the institution's liability.

Cover-ups and treble damages

Section 340.1(b) adds a remedy that is distinctive to California childhood cases. A survivor who proves the assault "was as the result of a cover up may recover up to treble damages against a defendant who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor, unless prohibited by another law." The statute defines a "cover up" as "a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault." Treble means up to three times the damages.

Institutions in bankruptcy

Some institutional defendants, including several California Catholic dioceses and the Boy Scouts of America, have filed for bankruptcy. A bankruptcy filing changes the route to recovery but does not by itself end it. That process is covered in its own section below.

How California's AB 218 and AB 2777 Changed the Legal Landscape

For most of California's history, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse had a short window after turning 18 to sue, and many claims against institutions expired before survivors were able to talk about what had happened, let alone file. Two bills changed that picture: AB 218 for childhood claims and AB 2777 for adult claims.

What a revival window is

A revival window is a period, set by statute, during which claims that had already expired may be filed again. It temporarily lifts the time bar for a defined group of claims. When the window closes, the time bar returns for anyone in that group who did not file.

AB 218 (2019): childhood claims

AB 218, effective January 1, 2020, did three things:

• It extended the deadline for childhood sexual assault claims to the later of age 40 or five years from discovery, as described above.
• It opened a three-year revival window for childhood claims that had already expired. That window closed on December 31, 2022.
• It removed the Government Claims Act presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against local public entities, and made that change retroactive.

Because the AB 218 window has closed, a survivor whose pre-2024 claim is outside the age-40 and five-year-discovery rules generally cannot use it now. For many survivors, however, the five-year discovery rule still leaves a claim open well past age 40.

AB 452 (2023): no time limit going forward

AB 452 amended section 340.1 to remove the time limit entirely, but only for abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024. It did not revive any expired claim. This point is widely misunderstood. A headline saying California "eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse" is accurate only for abuse from 2024 onward.

AB 2777 (2022): adult claims revived through December 31, 2026

AB 2777 (Stats. 2022, ch. 442), called the Sexual Abuse and Cover Up Accountability Act, wrote the revival window now found in section 340.16(b)(3). Its conditions, from the statute:

• The claim is based on sexual assault of an adult that occurred on or after January 1, 2009.
• The action is commenced on or after January 1, 2019.
• The claim would have been barred "solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired."
• The claim may be filed until December 31, 2026.

The window does not revive a claim that was litigated to finality in court before January 1, 2023, or a claim that was settled in writing before January 1, 2023.

Some search results describe this window using the name of a New York law. California has no law by that name, and the New York window closed in 2023. The California window is section 340.16(b)(3), and it remains open until the end of 2026.

A second, separate adult window: section 340.16(e)

A further revival window under section 340.16(e) runs from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027, under its own conditions. It does not reach public entities. The statute defines "entity" to exclude a public entity and bars a revived claim against a public entity, whether direct, derivative or vicarious. In that respect it operates differently from the 340.16(b)(3) window, and the two should not be assumed to work the same way.

Earlier, closed windows

Two earlier windows in section 340.16 were tied to specific university physicians: subdivision (c), for a USC student health center physician, closed December 31, 2020, and subdivision (d), for a UCLA medical clinic physician, closed December 31, 2021. Neither is available now. A survivor whose experience was in a similar setting may still have options under section 340.1, section 340.16(b)(3) or section 340.16(e).

Why the Legislature acted

The pattern across these bills reflects a recognized fact: survivors of sexual abuse commonly disclose late, if at all, and institutions sometimes used short deadlines to their advantage. The changes respond to that reality. A survivor who was told years ago that their claim was too late was told something that may no longer be true, and a fresh look at the dates may produce a different answer.

These changes affect civil claims only. Criminal time limits are set by different statutes and are not changed by any of these windows.

The Civil Lawsuit Process: What Survivors Can Expect

Uncertainty about what comes next is one of the most common reasons survivors hesitate. Laid out in order, the process is more predictable than many people expect, and much of it happens through attorneys rather than in person.

Step 1: A confidential first conversation

The first contact with a law firm is usually a short, private call about dates, ages, the type of organization involved, and what the survivor hopes to understand. No one needs to describe what happened in order to ask whether a claim may exist. The deadline analysis rests mostly on dates and relationships, not on details of the abuse. Asking a question commits the survivor to nothing.

Step 2: Investigation and case evaluation

If a survivor decides to go forward, the attorney investigates. That can include identifying every potential defendant (the employer, any parent organization, any entity that supervised the setting), determining whether any defendant is a public entity, gathering available records, checking for prior lawsuits or reports against the same person or institution, and assessing which liability theories fit.

Step 3: Filing the complaint

The lawsuit begins with a complaint filed in a California Superior Court, usually in the county where the abuse occurred or where a defendant is located. Information about the Superior Courts is available from the California Courts website. Where a public entity is involved and a government claim is required, that claim is presented first. For many childhood claims against local public entities, no claim is required.

Step 4: Discovery

Discovery is the exchange of information between the parties. It includes written questions (interrogatories), requests for documents, and depositions, which are recorded question-and-answer sessions under oath, held in a private office rather than a courtroom. The survivor's deposition is typically part of the case, and the attorney prepares the survivor for it. Much of discovery, though, focuses on the institution: its files, its policies, and its people.

Step 5: Mediation and settlement

Most institutional abuse cases resolve through settlement rather than trial. Mediation is a confidential meeting with a neutral third party, often a retired judge, who helps the sides negotiate. The survivor decides whether to accept any offer.

Step 6: Trial

Trial is less common in these cases but possible. A jury hears evidence and decides liability and damages. Some cases go to trial because the parties cannot agree on value; others because the institution disputes responsibility.

Privacy protections throughout

California courts have tools to limit public exposure. Survivors are often permitted to proceed under a pseudonym such as "Jane Doe" or "John Doe," and courts can issue protective orders restricting how sensitive records are used and, in some cases, sealing them. Testimony in a public courtroom typically arises only if a case goes to trial. These protections are covered in our guide to confidentiality in abuse claims.

How attorneys in this area are commonly paid

Many plaintiff-side attorneys in California sexual abuse cases work on a contingency fee, meaning the fee is a percentage of any recovery rather than an hourly charge billed as the case proceeds. California law regulates these agreements. Under Bus. & Prof. Code section 6147, a contingency agreement must be in writing, signed by both attorney and client, with a copy given to the client. It must state the fee rate, explain how costs and disbursements affect the fee and the client's recovery, state what if anything the client may owe for related matters, and, for claims like these, state that the fee "is not set by law but is negotiable." An agreement that fails these requirements is voidable at the client's option. The specific terms of any engagement, including how costs are handled, are discussed directly during a consultation.

What Survivors Can Recover in a California Institutional Abuse Lawsuit

Damages are the money a court awards, or a settlement provides, to compensate for harm. No amount of money undoes abuse, and no honest guide can say what a particular case is worth. What the law does is define categories of loss a survivor may seek.

Economic damages

Economic damages are measurable financial losses, including:

• past and future costs of therapy, psychiatric care and medical treatment
• lost earnings, where the effects of abuse interfered with work
• lost earning capacity, where the harm has affected the survivor's career path over time
• other out-of-pocket expenses caused by the abuse

Non-economic damages

Non-economic damages compensate for harm that has no receipt: emotional distress, anxiety, depression, loss of enjoyment of life, and damage to relationships and trust. These are often the largest component of an abuse claim. California's statutory cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases (known as MICRA) applies to professional negligence; sexual abuse claims are generally not subject to a comparable cap, though a case against a health care defendant may raise questions about how claims are characterized.

Punitive damages

Punitive damages are awarded not to compensate, but to punish and deter. Under Civil Code section 3294, they require proof "by clear and convincing evidence" (a higher standard than ordinary civil cases) that the defendant was guilty of "oppression, fraud, or malice." The statute defines malice to include "despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others."

For institutions, subdivision (b) adds a further requirement. An employer is liable for punitive damages based on an employee's acts only if it had advance knowledge of the employee's unfitness and employed the person with conscious disregard of others' safety, or authorized or ratified the conduct, or was itself guilty of oppression, fraud or malice. For a corporation, that knowledge or conduct must be on the part of "an officer, director, or managing agent." In institutional cases, evidence that leadership knew and concealed a risk is often what makes punitive damages possible. Punitive damages are generally not available against public entities.

For childhood claims, the treble-damages remedy for a cover-up under section 340.1(b), described above, may also apply.

What drives the value of a case

Settlement amounts vary enormously. Factors that commonly affect them include the nature and duration of the abuse, the severity of its effects on the survivor's life, the strength of evidence that the institution knew or should have known, whether there was a cover-up, the number of other claimants, the institution's insurance and resources, and whether the institution is in bankruptcy. Widely reported national figures, such as the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy settlement, describe a total fund shared across many thousands of claimants and say little about any individual recovery.

Restitution is a different thing

Restitution is ordered by a criminal court as part of a sentence, payable by the convicted person. Civil damages are separate and are paid by the defendants in the civil case, including institutions. A survivor can pursue civil damages whether or not there was ever a criminal case, and restitution in a criminal case does not prevent a civil claim.

A note on taxes

Under federal law, damages received on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness are generally excluded from income, and the treatment of emotional distress and punitive damages can differ. Tax consequences depend on how a recovery is structured, and survivors commonly consult a tax professional about their specific situation.

Proving an Institutional Abuse Claim: Evidence and Challenges

"How can anyone prove something that happened twenty years ago, with no one else in the room?" This is among the questions survivors ask most often. The answer is that institutional cases are built differently than many people assume.

The survivor's account is evidence

A survivor's own testimony is evidence, and civil law does not require that abuse have been reported at the time. Sexual abuse usually happens without witnesses, and delayed disclosure is common. California law does not treat the absence of a contemporaneous report as disqualifying, and a jury can believe a survivor's testimony on its own. Corroboration helps, but it is not an absolute requirement.

Institutional evidence often carries the case

Because the claim targets what the institution knew and did, much of the evidence comes from the institution itself:

• personnel files, hiring records and background checks
• prior complaints or concerns about the same person
• internal emails, memos, meeting minutes and incident reports
• mandated reporting records, or their absence
• policies on supervision, and evidence of whether they were followed
• records of transfers, leaves or resignations

Pattern evidence and other survivors

Prior complaints against the same perpetrator, or a pattern of similar failures by the same institution, can be powerful evidence of what the organization knew. When other survivors of the same person have already brought claims, their cases can surface records and testimony relevant to everyone.

Medical and therapy records

Treatment records can document the effects of abuse and support damages. Bringing a claim can put a survivor's mental health at issue, which may make some records relevant, but courts and protective orders limit how they are used. The psychotherapist-patient privilege is discussed in the support resources section.

Expert witnesses

Mental health professionals can testify about how trauma affects memory, why delayed disclosure is common, and how abuse has affected a particular survivor's life. Other experts may address institutional standards, such as what reasonable supervision policies looked like at the relevant time.

Preserving evidence

Once litigation is reasonably anticipated, parties are generally obligated to preserve relevant evidence. Destroying or losing it, called spoliation, can lead courts to impose sanctions, including instructions allowing a jury to infer the destroyed evidence was unfavorable.

Old cases can still be strong

Decades-old cases can be viable. Institutions tend to keep records for long periods, and prior investigations, lawsuits or public reports sometimes preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost. Whether a specific case is provable depends on what evidence exists, which is part of what an attorney assesses during investigation.

Specific Institutional Contexts in California

Each type of institution brings its own records, rules and procedural questions. The summaries below are general descriptions of how these settings tend to arise in California law. None is a statement about any particular organization.

Catholic dioceses and religious organizations

Claims against Catholic dioceses and religious orders have been a large share of California institutional litigation, particularly after the AB 218 revival window. Several California dioceses, including the Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland and the Diocese of San Diego, have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. For survivors with claims against a diocese in bankruptcy, recovery generally runs through the bankruptcy process rather than a standard lawsuit. Religious organizations are private entities, so the Government Claims Act does not apply.

Public K-12 schools

Public school districts are local public entities. For childhood sexual assault claims under section 340.1, the Government Claims Act presentation requirement does not apply, as discussed in the next section. District liability usually rests on the negligence of administrators and supervisors under Gov. Code section 815.2. More on this setting appears in our guide to school sexual abuse claims.

Private K-12 schools

Private and parochial schools are not public entities. No government claim is required, and the ordinary deadlines in sections 340.1 and 340.16 apply.

Youth sports organizations

Claims can arise against local clubs, regional associations and national governing bodies, some of which are headquartered outside California but supervise California programs and coaches. Identifying which organizations had authority over a coach, and what each knew, is an important part of these cases. Federal law also requires many national sports bodies to report abuse, separate from California's CANRA.

Scouting

The Boy Scouts of America filed a national bankruptcy, and its confirmed reorganization plan created a settlement trust to process abuse claims, including those of California survivors. Claims against local councils and chartered organizations may be affected by the plan as well. This is discussed further in the bankruptcy section.

Foster care and group homes

County child welfare agencies are local public entities, and their liability can arise through employees' negligence under section 815.2. Private foster family agencies and group homes are private entities with their own duties. A child in foster care may have been under the supervision of more than one organization at once, which can mean more than one potential defendant.

Universities and colleges

Private universities are private entities. Public colleges and universities raise a question about which public-entity rules apply, because some institutions are local entities and others may be treated as the State. Federal Title IX processes are administrative and do not replace a civil claim; a survivor may pursue both. The section 340.16(c) and (d) windows that applied to two specific university physicians have closed, but section 340.1, section 340.16(b)(3) and section 340.16(e) remain the relevant questions.

Juvenile halls and youth detention facilities

County juvenile halls and camps are generally local public entities. State-operated facilities are different, and the claim rules for the State are not the same as for local entities. For any detention setting, establishing exactly which government body operated the facility is the first step.

Government Entity Defendants: The Claims Act Requirement

A common misunderstanding is that every claim against a government body must begin with a government claim form. For childhood sexual assault, that is often not true. For adult claims and for claims against the State, the rules are more complicated, and they do not all point the same way.

The general rule

The Government Claims Act requires that most claims for money against a public entity first be presented in writing. Under Gov. Code section 945.4, where a claim is required, no lawsuit may be filed until the claim "has been presented to the public entity and has been acted upon by the board, or has been deemed to have been rejected." For personal injury claims, the presentation deadline is generally six months from when the claim accrued, much shorter than the civil statute of limitations.

Childhood sexual assault claims against local public entities

Gov. Code section 905 lists claims against local public entities that do not need to be presented. Subdivision (m) covers "Claims made pursuant to Section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault." There is no condition based on the date of the abuse. AB 218 removed the earlier date limitation, and section 905(p) made that change retroactive. Section 340.1(q) likewise provides that a childhood sexual assault claim is not required to be presented to any government entity before suit, and a separate provision of the Government Claims Act prevents a local entity from substituting its own claim procedure. For a survivor of childhood abuse at a public school district, county agency or county juvenile facility, this generally means the lawsuit can be filed directly, within the section 340.1 deadline.

Claims against the State

Section 905 governs local public entities. Claims against the State of California are presented under a separate Government Claims Act provision, which contains no comparable exemption for childhood sexual assault. For a state defendant, the exemption comes from section 340.1(q), which reaches only conduct on or after January 1, 2024. When it is unclear whether a defendant is a local entity or the State, determining that status is the first step in the analysis.

Adult survivors and public entities

For adult sexual assault claims, the section 905(m) exemption does not apply, because it covers section 340.1 claims only, not section 340.16 claims. A government claim may therefore still be required for adult claims against a public entity. As for the AB 2777 window: section 340.16(b)(3) is open until December 31, 2026 for otherwise time-barred adult assault occurring on or after January 1, 2009, and its only carve-outs are a claim litigated to finality and a claim settled in writing before January 1, 2023. The separate section 340.16(e) window, by its terms, excludes public entities.

Relief for a late government claim

Where a claim was required and not presented on time, a survivor can apply to the entity for leave to present a late claim. If that is denied, Gov. Code section 946.6 allows a petition to the Superior Court. The petition must be filed within six months after the application is denied or deemed denied. The court must grant relief if the application was made within a reasonable time and one of the listed grounds applies, including that the failure to present the claim was "through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect" (unless the entity shows prejudice), or that the injured person was a minor during the entire claim-presentation period.

Why public-entity status is checked early

Because a required government claim generally has a shorter deadline than the lawsuit itself, identifying whether any defendant is a public entity, and which kind, is one of the first things examined in a case review.

Bankruptcy Trusts and Mass Settlement Programs

When an institution files for bankruptcy, its abuse claims do not disappear. They move into a different system, one with its own rules, deadlines and decision-makers.

The automatic stay

A bankruptcy filing triggers an automatic stay, a court order that pauses lawsuits against the debtor. Survivors' cases against that institution generally cannot proceed in state court while the stay is in place. Instead, survivors file proofs of claim in the bankruptcy case, and the claims are resolved as part of a reorganization plan.

How trusts work

In many abuse bankruptcies, the reorganization plan creates a trust funded by the institution, its insurers and sometimes related organizations. Survivors submit claim forms, which are reviewed under criteria written into the plan. Claims are often assigned to tiers or point values based on the nature and duration of the abuse, its effects, and other factors. The Boy Scouts of America plan created such a trust. In other cases, including several California diocesan bankruptcies, the process is ongoing and its outcome depends on what the bankruptcy court approves.

Neutral administrators

Some mass settlement programs, whether in or outside bankruptcy, use an independent claims administrator or a neutral evaluator to review submissions and determine awards. The survivor's attorney prepares the submission and supporting documents.

Separate deadlines

Bankruptcy claim deadlines, often called bar dates, are set by the bankruptcy court and are separate from California's civil statutes of limitations. Some have passed. Others remain open, and some plans contain provisions for late or future claims. Whether a particular survivor can still participate depends on the specific case.

Trust process versus lawsuit

A trust process typically involves no trial and often no deposition, which some survivors prefer. It also offers less control: the survivor generally cannot negotiate individually or ask a jury to decide. A bankruptcy filing by one institution also does not necessarily protect every other organization that may share responsibility, such as a separate school, parish entity or insurer, though plans sometimes extend protections to related parties.

Common Myths and Misconceptions About Institutional Abuse Lawsuits

Several widely held beliefs stop survivors from asking a single question. Each is addressed plainly below.

"It happened too long ago, so I can't file."

Often not true. For childhood abuse before 2024, the deadline is the later of age 40 or five years from discovery of the connection between the abuse and a psychological injury. For adult assault since 2009, the section 340.16(b)(3) window is open until December 31, 2026. Whether a particular claim is timely depends on its dates.

"I need a police report or a criminal conviction."

A civil claim does not depend on any criminal case. Section 340.16 states that no prosecution or conviction is necessary, and childhood claims work the same way in practice.

"I would have to tell my whole story just to find out."

No. An initial consultation is confidential and turns mostly on dates, ages and the organizations involved. No one needs to describe what happened in order to ask whether a claim may exist.

"The institution went bankrupt, so there is nothing left."

Bankruptcy changes the process, not necessarily the outcome. Trusts and claims procedures exist to resolve survivors' claims, and other responsible parties may sit outside the bankruptcy.

"I was an adult, so the law does not cover what happened to me."

California law covers adult survivors directly, through section 340.16's ten-year and three-year discovery rules and through its revival windows.

"I waited too long."

There is no "should have" in California's deadline rules. The discovery rule and revival windows exist because delayed disclosure is common. Whether a deadline has passed is a calculation, not a judgment about the survivor.

"A lawsuit means a public trial and public testimony."

Most cases settle. Survivors frequently proceed under a pseudonym, and protective orders can limit disclosure of sensitive information.

Support Resources for Survivors in California

Legal help and emotional support are different things, and a survivor can use either one without the other. Reaching out to a support organization does not commit anyone to a lawsuit, and talking to a lawyer does not require being in therapy. The organizations below are independent of Justice for Survivors and are listed as resources only.

National and statewide support

• RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotline: 1-800-656-HOPE (4673), or online chat at online.rainn.org. Free, confidential, and available 24 hours a day. Calls are routed to a local sexual assault service provider.
• California Coalition Against Sexual Assault (CALCASA): a statewide organization that supports California's rape crisis centers and can help locate local services, at calcasa.org.
• Cal OES Victim Services: the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services funds and oversees victim service programs, including rape crisis centers and child abuse treatment programs across the state.
• California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB): the CalVCB may help eligible victims of crime pay for costs such as counseling and medical care. CalVCB is separate from any civil lawsuit, and its own eligibility rules apply.

Therapy communications are privileged

California protects what a survivor says in therapy. Under Evidence Code section 1014, a patient "has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing, a confidential communication between patient and psychotherapist." The privilege belongs to the patient and is subject to certain statutory exceptions, including some that can arise when a person's mental condition is placed at issue in litigation. How the privilege interacts with a civil claim is a common topic in an initial consultation.

Related topics

• Institutional sexual abuse in California
• Civil and criminal cases are compared in more depth in the guide linked in the first section above.
• Catholic Church abuse claims, foster care abuse claims and youth sports abuse claims in California are also covered on this site.

If You Would Like to Talk Through Your Situation, Privately

If you experienced sexual abuse connected to a school, church, youth program, foster care placement, medical setting or other organization in California, you may have the right to pursue a civil claim against that institution as well as the person responsible. California law allows a survivor to seek compensation for the harm abuse causes, including emotional harm, the cost of therapy and medical care, lost income and earning capacity, and other damages the law permits, along with the acknowledgment and justice a civil claim can seek. Options may exist even when the abuse happened many years ago: the deadlines for childhood claims were extended, and the section 340.16(b)(3) window for certain adult claims remains open through December 31, 2026.

A confidential case review with Justice for Survivors looks at dates, ages, the organizations involved and whether any defendant is a public entity, and explains which California deadlines may apply. It is free, private and carries no obligation. You do not need to describe what happened, gather documents or decide anything first, and you can reach out by whichever channel feels safest. When you are ready, you can call Justice for Survivors at (866) 694-1630 to request a confidential case review.