In West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court (A.M.M.), published July 31, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 5 denied a petition for a writ overturning the trial court's order overruling the petitioner district's demurrer. The district challenged Assembly Bill 218's amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, which created a three-year window for bringing suit for childhood sexual abuse claims that were barred by statute of limitation or the Government Claims Act's claim-presentation deadlines. The district demurred to a lawsuit brought under AB 218's revival provision on the ground that the act violated the California Constitution's prohibition on gifts of public funds. The trial court overruled the demurrer to the extent it was based on the gift clause argument. The district petitioned for writ relief. Numerous amici curiae supported the petition.
The appellate court ruled that AB 218 is not a gift of public funds. Cal. Const., art. XVI, ยง 6 prohibits the legislature from making direct appropriations of public funds to persons or entities based on charity, gratitude, or moral obligation. It does not bar making appropriations for public purposes. Based on case law, it bars the legislature from creating a new substantive liability and making it retroactive. But it does not bar retroactively removing a procedural prerequisite to suing for a previously-existing substantive liability. The Government Claims Act and the Legislative Committee Comments to it establish that claims presentation is a condition the state imposes on its consent to be sued; it does not in itself create a substantive liability. AB 218's waiver of that condition is therefore not a public gift. Further, AB 218 serves a public purpose, by expanding the ability of victims of abuse to recover. Assisting a disadvantaged group is a recognized public purpose. The court rejected the public policy arguments against AB 218, such as the act assisting past school children at the expense of current ones, because those are concerns that should be presented to the Legislature when it passes such legislation. Indeed, those concerns were presented to the Legislature, and it chose to pass AB 218. Although the district asserted AB 218 violates its due process rights, it has no standing to make that argument. Under both the federal constitution and state constitution, subdivisions of the state may not challenge the state's actions based on such constitutional rights as due process.
Comments