Judge: Robert C. Longstreth, Case: 37-2023-00028280-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 18, 2024

01/19/2024  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Robert Longstreth

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00028280-CU-PO-CTL JANE SDD DOE VS DOE 1 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 11/13/2023

Defendant San Dieguito Union High School District's Demurrer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ROA 35) is OVERRULED.

Defendant asserts Plaintiff's entire Second Amended Complaint is unconstitutional on two grounds. In passing upon a constitutional challenge, the court is obligated to 'exercise judicial restraint in passing upon the acts of coordinate branches of government; the presumption is in favor of constitutionality, and the invalidity of the legislation must be clear before it can be declared unconstitutional.' (Dittus v. Cranston (1959) 53 Cal.2d 284, 286.) First, Defendant asserts that AB 218 amending section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 905(m) of the Government Code, effective January 1, 2020, as applied to Defendant, violates the California Constitution's prohibition of gifts of public funds. (Cal. Const., Art. XVI, § 6.) The court is not persuaded that the amendments to this statute constitute a gift of public funds. As Defendant's own briefing makes clear, in the cases Defendant cites the Legislature had generally passed a law attempting to expressly compensate a plaintiff in some way. (Bourn v. Hart (1892) 93 Cal. 321; Conlin v. Board of Supervisors (1893) 99 Cal. 17; Powerll v. Phelan (1903) 138 Cal. 271.) Here, by contrast, the amendment to the statute merely allows certain claims to proceed. Indeed, if Defendant were correct that any attempt to impose liability on the government as to claims that were previously unenforceable would be a gift of public funds, any waiver of sovereign immunity would be unconstitutional. Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate the law is clearly unconstitutional, and its demurrer is overruled on these grounds.

Second, Defendant asserts section 340.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure violates Defendant's due process rights. 'In determining whether a retroactive law contravenes the due process clause, we consider such factors as the significance of the state interest served by the law, the importance of the retroactive application of the law to the effectuation of that interest, the extent of reliance upon the former law, the legitimacy of that reliance, and the extent to which the retroactive application of the new law would disrupt those actions.' (In re Marriage of Bouquet (1976) 16 Cal.3d 583, 592 (en banc).) The District argues it relied on prior versions of the law and had a legitimate expectation it could not be held liable for childhood sexual assault claims arising prior to 2009. However, a defendant 'has no constitutional right to be free of the obligation to defend stale claims.' (Deutsch v. Masonic Homes of California, Inc. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 748, 760.) The District also asserts retroactive application of the law would disrupt the District, noting it is part of a risk sharing pool with other school districts and will now have to take the new law into account in its fiscal planning.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077064  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  JANE SDD DOE VS DOE 1 [IMAGED]  37-2023-00028280-CU-PO-CTL The District ignores the remaining factors that must be considered here, in particular the furtherance of the significant state interest involved, as evidenced by the legislative history Plaintiff cites in her opposition. The court grants Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of these records. (Evid. Code § 452(c).) The legislative history discusses how childhood sexual abuse continues to ruin lives, with perpetrators often escaping liability. Retroactive application of the law is clearly important to effectuation of that important interest, because it would allow more victims to bring their claims forward and obtain compensation for their injuries. Again, Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate the law is clearly unconstitutional, and its demurrer is overruled on these grounds.

The demurrer is also specifically overruled as to the tenth cause of action. Defendant's initial brief and Plaintiff's opposition both rely on Donavan v. Poway Unified School District (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 567, 605, which adopts Title IX's liability standards to claims for money damages under Education Code section 220. Without addressing this authority, or contradicting Plaintiff's showing that sexual harassment has been held to be a form of gender discrimination under Title IX, Defendant argues, without citation to any case so holding, that Education Code section 220 should be given a different and much narrower construction than Title IX. The court is not persuaded.

Once confirmed, this ruling shall be the final ruling of the court and no further written order is required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3077064  7