Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV32849, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32849    Hearing Date: April 2, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED.

            On 12/12/2024, Plaintiff James Michael Gubbins Jr. (Plaintiff) filed suit against Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Jaime Jimenez (collectively, Defendants) alleging injuries and damages from childhood sexual abuse.

            On 2/3/2025, Defendant demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Discussion

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because they are legally impermissible as a violation of the California Constitution. More specifically, Defendant argues that AB 218—which extended the statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases and relieved such plaintiffs from the government claim requirement—is unconstitutional, because it purports to retroactively exempt childhood sexual abuse plaintiffs from the Government Claim presentation requirements.

The Court disagrees. 

The First Appellate District, Division Five, upheld AB 218’s constitutionality in West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243. Defendant urges the Court to disregard this holding, arguing that it was wrongly decided.

However, as even Defendant concedes, the Court is bound by stare decisis. Moreover, there are a number of other Court rulings which would incline this Court to follow, rather than disregard, West Contra.

For example, in Coats v. New Haven Unified School District (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 415, the Court found that the removal of the claims presentation requirement for child sexual abuse cases was constitutional:

The present case, of course, involves revival of a cause of action barred by a claim presentation requirement, not a statute of limitations. But we are aware of no reason the Legislature should be any less able to revive claims in this context, as it expressly did in Assembly Bill 218.” (Id. at 428.) (emphasis added) Legislation reviving the statute of limitations on civil law claims does not violate constitutional principles. (Id. at 425.)

(emphasis added.)

Other courts have affirmed the same. (See Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1155, 1161 [“It is equally well settled that legislation reviving the statute of limitations on civil law claims does not violate constitutional principles.”]; Liebig v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 828, 830 [“the Legislature has the power to retroactively extend a civil statute of limitations to revive a cause of action time-barred under the former limitations period.”); Deutsch v. Masonic Homes of California, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 748, 760 [defendants have no “no constitutional right to be free of the obligation to defend stale claims.”].)

Taken together, the Court finds no basis for disregarding the Court of Appeal’s published decision. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)

            Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is overruled.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.