Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The petitioners are plaintiffs in Judicial Council Coordinated Proceeding 5108, In re Northern California Clergy Cases, a coordinated Alameda County Superior Court action joining claims by childhood sexual abuse survivors against various religious entities and institutions in Northern California. Some alleged abuse occurred before Proposition 51 took effect on June 4, 1986. Petitioners did not sue within the then-existing limitations period, but their claims were revived when the Legislature amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 in 2019. Former subdivision (q) allowed claims that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, to be commenced within three years of that date.
In April 2025, petitioners filed a motion in limine asking the JCCP trial court to find that Proposition 51's elimination of joint and several liability for noneconomic damages did not apply to their pre-June 1986 abuse claims, arguing those claims accrued when the abuse occurred. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion in an August 2025 order, finding the claims accrued or re-accrued for Proposition 51 purposes when statutorily revived in 2020. The Court of Appeal initially summarily denied petitioners' mandate petition, but the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the cause back with directions to issue an order to show cause. After issuing the order and hearing oral argument, the appellate court again denied the petition.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Proposition 51, approved by voters in 1986, retained joint and several liability for economic damages but limited noneconomic damages to several liability based on each defendant's proportionate fault. Under Evangelatos v. Superior Court, the initiative applies only prospectively to claims accruing after its effective date, reflecting reasonable reliance and settled expectations. The court rejected petitioners' argument that the revival statute's phrase 'any claim for damages' restored all forms of recovery, explaining that 'any' identified the claims eligible for revival in an indefinite sense, while joint and several liability is a method of apportioning damages among multiple defendants, not a type of damages. The statute's express treble-damages provision for cover-ups further showed the Legislature could speak directly when changing available remedies.
Applying Evangelatos and Buttram, the court held that revived claims accrued for Proposition 51 purposes on January 1, 2020. Petitioners had no reason to rely on pre-1986 law in choosing defendants, and defendants had no reason before revival to plan for liability, cross-claims, or settlements. AB 218 was enacted against decades of settled Proposition 51 law without a definitive indication of displacement, and its legislative history preserved applicable defenses. The court therefore held liability on claims revived under section 340.1, subdivision (q) several but not joint for noneconomic damages, while economic damages could still be apportioned jointly and severally.
Key Takeaways
- A childhood sexual abuse claim revived under section 340.1, subdivision (q) accrued for Proposition 51 purposes when revived on January 1, 2020, not when the abuse occurred.
- Defendants on revived claims are severally liable for their own shares of noneconomic damages, not jointly and severally liable for the entire award.
- Proposition 51 does not eliminate joint and several liability for economic damages on these claims.
- The phrase 'any claim for damages' did not displace Proposition 51 because apportionment among defendants is distinct from the kind of damages recovered.
- The writ petition was denied with each party bearing its own costs; a later order denied rehearing and judicial notice without changing the judgment.
Why It Matters
This decision resolves an accrual question the court observed had not been directly answered by the appellate courts, distinguishing earlier cases addressing government-claims presentation deadlines because a cause of action may accrue on different dates for different legal purposes. Its practical effect is to apply comparative-fault apportionment of noneconomic damages to statutorily revived childhood sexual abuse claims rather than restoring the pre-1986 deep-pocket rule of joint and several liability.
On October 30, 2026, the court issued an order modifying the October 5 opinion to delete 'presumed and' from line 16 of footnote 5, directing the clerk to accept petitioners' October 20 judicial notice request for filing, but denying both that request and the rehearing petition with no change in judgment. The opinion is not certified for publication.