Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 22STCV26047, Date: 2024-10-08 Tentative Ruling

This is a childhood sexual abuse case. On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff, J.W., initiated this action for sexual assaults that occurred between 1968 and 1969 against Defendant, Los Angeles Unified School District (as Doe 1), among others, alleging causes of actions for Negligence (first cause of action) and Negligent Hiring, Retention, and Supervision (third cause of action).

In relevant part, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was sexually abused by a teacher with the last name “Wilson”. Wilson was an employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Plaintiff alleges LAUSD knew or had reason to know of Wilson’s sexual abuse of other students prior to abusing Plaintiff. Further, instead of taking remedial action, LAUSD covered up Wilson’s conduct and permitted the abuse to continue.

On July 24, 2024, LAUSD filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the First and Third Causes of Action. The motion advances one argument: Plaintiff’s claims against LAUSD are barred by law because Assembly Bill 218 (AB 218) which retroactively stripped the claims presentation requirement for alleged sexual conduct occurring prior to 2009. Specifically, LAUSD argues AB 218’s creation of liability for past negligent conduct is a gift of public funds prohibited by Article XVI, Section 6, of the California Constitution.

The motion lacks merit. The First District Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion which forecloses LAUSD’s argument. In West Contra Costa Unified School District v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1243 (West Contra Costa), a childhood sexual abuse case, the defendant school district raised the same “gift of public funds” argument LAUSD advances here. In no uncertain terms, the Court of Appeal stated, “The [West Contra Costa Unified School ]District contends AB 218's waiver of the claim presentation requirement is a gift of public funds, insofar as the statute retroactively removes the requirement for claims that accrued before 2009. In this Part, we reject this argument, without regard to the question of public purpose (see Part III, post). As we explain, waiver of the claim presentation requirement did not constitute an expenditure of public funds that may be considered a “gift” because AB 218 did not create new “substantive liability” [citation] for the underlying alleged wrongful conduct. Instead, AB 218 simply waived a condition the state had imposed on its consent to suit.” (West Contra Costa, supra, 103.Cal.App.5th at p. 1257.) The same reasoning applies here.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court