In M.D. Doe, et al., v. Marysville Joint Unified School District, ordered published March 27, 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' lawsuit after demurrer. In 2002, the plaintiffs sued the district and an employee, alleging their school counselor sexually abused them. in that lawsuit, the trial court entered judgment for the district after finding that the plaintiffs had failed to timely present a claim to the district. The appellate court affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. In 2019, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 218, amending Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 to extend the statute of limitations for victims bringing childhood claims of sexual assault that had not been "litigated to finality." The plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit, predicated on the same facts as the 2002 suit. The trial court sustained the district's demurrer, without leave to amend, based on res judicata. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that because their first action was dismissed based on timeliness, res judicata did not apply because their previous claims were not "litigated to finality" on the merits, and may therefore be revived; and that dismissing the claims violated equal protection.
The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of section 340.1's "litigated to finality" argument. The plain language of section 340.1 does not support the interpretation. Under the statute's language, the statute only revives claims that have not already reached final adjudication. The plaintiffs' claims were litigated to completion: summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, with the Supreme Court denying review. The prior version of section 340.1 stated that the revival provision of section 340.1 does not apply to claims litigated to finality on the merits. The Legislature had good reason to remove that language: reopening a case litigated to finality would be unconstitutional. Under separation of powers, the power to conclusively resolve cases by rendering dispositive judgments rests with the judiciary alone. The Legislature therefore may not reverse final judgments. AB 218 therefore negates the plaintiffs' interpretation, as the Legislature expressly removed language permitting plaintiffs to reopen cases disposed of on nonmerit-based grounds. The Legislature intended that all claims litigated to finality, regardless of the basis for adjudication, may not be revived under section 340.1. Further, plaintiffs' argument that their action was dismissed as untimely under the statute of limitations is inaccurate. Instead, the courts found the plaintiffs failed to timely present a claim under Government Code section 911.2. The timeliness requirements are similar, but different. The court further rejected the argument that treating those who litigated their claims to finality differently from those who did not violated Equal Protection. The Legislature had a rational basis for differentiating between the two groups: separation of powers.
Comments