Survivors of sexual abuse in Santa Rosa or elsewhere in Sonoma County may be able to bring a civil lawsuit for money damages against the person who caused the harm and against any school, church, employer or other organization that failed to protect them. These cases are filed in Sonoma County Superior Court, and California's deadlines under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 and § 340.16 are longer than many survivors expect.
Civil Sexual Abuse Claims in California: What They Are and How They Work
A civil claim is a lawsuit brought by the survivor, not by the government. In a criminal case, the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office decides whether to file charges and controls the prosecution. In a civil case, the survivor is the plaintiff (the person who brings the lawsuit) and decides whether to file, whether to settle and when to stop. No district attorney needs to be involved, and the differences between civil and criminal cases go further than who files.
For a broader walk through the same framework, see considering a California civil claim.
Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse Claims in Santa Rosa
A statute of limitations is the deadline for filing a lawsuit. For sexual abuse, the deadline that applies depends mainly on two dates: how old the survivor was, and when the abuse happened.
Abuse that happened before age 18
Section 340.1 now says there is no time limit for a childhood sexual assault claim. That rule applies only to abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024. The change did not revive older claims.
For abuse that happened on or before December 31, 2023, the deadline is the one the law set as of that date: generally, until the survivor's 40th birthday, or five years from when the survivor discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) that a later psychological injury was caused by the abuse, whichever is later. A survivor over 40 may still have a timely claim if the connection between the abuse and an injury was recognized recently.
AB 218, effective January 1, 2020, also opened a three-year window for older childhood claims that had already expired. That window closed on December 31, 2022.
A plaintiff who is 40 or older when the case is filed must file certificates of merit: one from the attorney and one from a licensed mental health practitioner who is not the survivor's own treating provider, each stating there is a reasonable basis for the claim. And where a defendant is proven to have covered up the abuse, meaning a concerted effort to hide evidence of it, the statute allows recovery of up to three times the damages, unless another law prohibits it.
More detail on childhood claims is on our California child sexual abuse page.
Abuse that happened at age 18 or older
Under § 340.16, as amended by AB 1619 (effective January 1, 2019), an adult survivor generally has until the later of 10 years from the last act of sexual assault, or three years from when the survivor discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an injury resulted from it. A criminal prosecution is not required.
The same section contains a revival window. Adult sexual assault claims based on conduct on or after January 1, 2009, that would otherwise be barred only because the deadline expired, may be filed until December 31, 2026. The window does not revive a claim that was litigated to a final decision, or settled in a written agreement, before January 1, 2023.
A separate, narrower revival window in § 340.16 runs from January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2027. It does not apply to claims against public entities, which is one way it differs from the window described above.
Other windows that once appeared in § 340.16 were limited to particular university physicians and have closed.
Why the defendant matters
When a defendant is a public entity, such as a school district or county agency, extra rules may apply. For childhood claims against a local public entity, California law generally removes the usual requirement to present a government claim first. Claims against the State follow different rules.
The current text of every statute is published at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
Who Can Be Held Liable: Perpetrators and Institutions in Sonoma County
The person who committed the abuse can always be named as a defendant.
Three legal theories come up most often in institutional claims:
- Negligent hiring: the organization hired someone it knew, or should have known, was a risk to the people in its care.
- Negligent supervision: the organization failed to reasonably oversee an employee or volunteer, or the children or patients in its care.
- Negligent retention: the organization kept someone in a position of trust after it knew, or should have known, of a danger.
Section 340.1 expressly covers claims against any person or entity that owed the survivor a duty of care, where that entity's wrongful or negligent act was a legal cause of the abuse.
Public institutions are subject to their own framework. Under Government Code § 815.2, a public entity is generally liable for injury caused by an employee acting within the scope of employment, if the employee could be sued for it. It is generally not liable where the employee is immune. In Sonoma County, that framework can reach school districts and county agencies, but immunity questions are fact-specific.
This page does not name any local institution as a defendant; whether a specific organization may be responsible is a question for a private review of the facts.