A Pomona sexual abuse lawyer helps survivors bring civil claims in California for money damages, separate from any criminal case. Childhood abuse on or after January 1, 2024 has no filing deadline, and adult assault claims generally allow 10 years from the last act or three years from discovery, with a revival window through December 31, 2026.
If you are a Pomona survivor of sexual abuse or assault, there may be a path to a civil lawsuit in California even if no criminal case was ever filed and even if the abuse happened long ago. A claim can name the person responsible and, in many cases, an institution that failed to protect you. Most Pomona claims are filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Many survivors do not connect what happened to them with a legal claim until much later, and California law is written with that in mind. Asking a question carries no commitment.
Civil Claims for Sexual Abuse in California: What Pomona Survivors Can Pursue
A civil claim and a criminal case run on two separate tracks. A criminal case is brought by the district attorney, who decides whether to file charges. A civil claim is brought by the survivor, who decides whether to file, whether to settle and when to stop. The civil vs. criminal cases comparison sets out the differences in more detail.
No criminal conviction is required. California's adult assault statute says plainly that no prosecution needs to have been brought, and if one was brought, it does not need to have ended in a conviction.
A civil claim seeks compensation. It can name the individual who committed the abuse, and institutions whose own failures contributed to it: schools, churches, youth organizations, healthcare providers and others with a duty to protect.
California has widened survivors' rights considerably through laws including AB 218 and AB 2777, explained below. A broader overview of California civil sexual abuse claims is also available.
California Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Civil Claims
A statute of limitations is the legal deadline for filing a lawsuit. In California, which deadline applies depends on whether the survivor was a child or an adult, and when the abuse happened.
Abuse that happened in childhood (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1). For childhood sexual assault occurring on or after January 1, 2024, there is no time limit for filing, against the perpetrator or against a person or entity whose negligent or intentional conduct was a legal cause of the abuse. For abuse on or before December 31, 2023, the rule is the one in place at the end of 2023: a claim may be filed until the survivor's 40th birthday, or within five years of discovering that a psychological injury was caused by the abuse, whichever is later. Recent changes did not reopen older claims that had already expired. Survivors filing at age 40 or older must file certificates of merit, signed by their attorney and by a licensed mental health practitioner who is not treating them. Where a defendant is proven to have covered up the abuse, the statute allows recovery of up to treble damages.
AB 218 (2019) opened a three-year revival window for childhood claims that had already expired. That window closed on December 31, 2022.
Abuse that happened in adulthood (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.16). For sexual assault 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, that an injury or illness resulted from the assault.
AB 2777 (2022) wrote a revival window into section 340.16(b)(3). It covers adult sexual assault that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, where the claim would otherwise be barred only because the deadline had passed. Those claims may be filed until December 31, 2026. The window does not revive a claim that was litigated to a final result before January 1, 2023, or one resolved by a written settlement signed before that date. Older windows written for specific university physicians closed in 2020 and 2021.
A revival window reopens the filing deadline; it does not settle every question a revived case may raise, such as whether the window reaches a particular claim or how a defendant may respond to it.
The discovery rule. Several of these deadlines can start not on the date of the abuse but when a survivor connects an injury, such as anxiety or depression, to the abuse. That connection often comes years later.
Public entities, such as public school districts. For childhood sexual abuse claims against a local public entity, California exempts the claim from the usual government claim-presentation requirement, and a local entity cannot substitute its own claim procedure. Claims against the State of California follow different rules, and for a state defendant the exemption reaches only conduct on or after January 1, 2024. Adult assault claims against public entities raise separate questions.
A survivor does not need to work out their own deadline before asking.
Who Can Be Held Liable: Perpetrators, Employers, and Institutions
The person who committed the abuse is the most direct defendant. California's civil sexual battery statute, Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5, makes a person who commits a sexually offensive contact with intent to cause harmful or offensive contact liable for damages, including general damages (for emotional harm), special damages (such as therapy costs and lost income) and punitive damages. Courts may also order equitable relief, such as an injunction.
Institutions can be liable for their own failures. The theories usually include:
- Negligent hiring: bringing someone into a position of trust without reasonable screening.
- Negligent supervision: failing to monitor an employee or volunteer with access to children or vulnerable adults.
- Negligent retention: keeping someone on after warning signs or complaints.
- Premises liability: failing to keep property the institution controlled reasonably safe.
Respondeat superior is the doctrine under which an employer can be responsible for an employee's acts within the scope of employment. California courts apply it narrowly in sexual abuse cases, so institutional claims usually rest on the institution's own negligence.
Institutional claims often depend on records the survivor never saw: personnel files, prior complaints and internal reports. Those records can show what an institution knew and when. Gathering them is the attorney's work, through the court process.