GET A FREE CONSULTATION
310-750-4149
Representing survivors. Holding schools and institutions accountable.
Reviewed by David Gammill, California trial attorney · Last reviewed: October 23, 2026 · Updated for SB 577 (2026)
When a teacher, coach, counselor, clergy member, or staff member sexually abuses a child, the abuser is responsible. Very often the institution is responsible too. It hired that person, supervised that person, received warnings about that person, or looked the other way. Gammill Law Accident & Injury Lawyers represents survivors and their families, never the institutions, in civil cases against schools, youth organizations, religious institutions, county facilities, and other institutions in Los Angeles County and throughout California.
Gammill Law has recovered more than $100 million for California clients across verdicts and settlements. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
You can read this page without contacting anyone. If you do reach out, the conversation is confidential, you decide what to share, and nothing happens unless you ask us to act. Call 310-750-4149 or send a confidential message.
Yes. David Gammill was lead trial counsel in a case against a California school district brought by a survivor who had been abused by a teacher decades earlier. After a first trial ended in a mistrial, David Gammill was brought in as lead trial counsel for the retrial. Five other former students came forward and testified. The jury found that the district had been negligent in supervising and retaining the teacher and found $16 million in damages, entirely non-economic.
That case is the kind this page is about: an institution that had warning signs and did not act. It was tried against a public entity, under the rules that govern claims against school districts, which are different from the rules for private defendants. You can read the full account of what the district knew at $16 Million School Sexual Abuse Verdict: What the District Knew. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Separately, David Gammill was part of the team of attorneys that recovered $852 million for all of the plaintiffs in the USC sexual abuse litigation, reported at the time as the largest sexual abuse settlement ever paid by a university. That outcome reflects the work of many lawyers and the facts of those cases, not a prediction about yours.
This page is for survivors of sexual abuse that happened while an institution was responsible for their safety, and for the parents and family members who are trying to help them. That includes abuse connected to:
Our work centers on institutional responsibility: cases where a school, organization, or agency had a duty to protect the survivor and failed. If your case does not involve an institution, we will tell you that honestly and try to point you toward a lawyer who can help.
Short answer: If you were under 18 when the abuse happened and it happened on or after January 1, 2024, California sets no deadline to file. If you were under 18 and the abuse happened before 2024, most survivors have until age 40, or longer if they only recently discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that harm they are living with as an adult was caused by the abuse. That discovery period is five years through December 31, 2026 and three years starting January 1, 2027. Survivors who were adults when the abuse happened have different deadlines, and we will tell you which rules apply to your dates.
On September 30, 2026, the Governor signed Senate Bill 577, which rewrites parts of how childhood sexual abuse cases work in California, especially cases against public school districts, counties, and other government entities. Most of its changes take effect on January 1, 2027, and one of them reaches back to cases filed during 2026. Many websites still describe the old rules. Three changes matter most to the people who read this page:
None of that closes the courthouse. It changes what has to be proven and how carefully a case has to be built, and it makes the dates matter more than they did. The full rules, including the certificates of merit a survivor who is 40 or older must file, the difference between what the law requires today and what it will require in 2027, and how the public and private rules compare side by side, are in our guide to the California childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations after SB 577. The current text of Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 and § 340.11 is on the Legislature’s site. Talk to a lawyer before you assume a case is too old or too new.
Short answer: A California public school district can be held liable when administrators or supervisors were negligent in hiring, supervising, or keeping an employee who abused a student. Private schools, churches, sports organizations, and other institutions can be liable for the same failures under general negligence law.
The California Supreme Court held in C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861 that a public school district can be vicariously liable when its administrators or supervisors negligently hire, supervise, or retain an employee who sexually abuses a student. Schools stand in a special relationship with the students in their care, and that relationship carries a duty to take reasonable steps to protect them. The same principles apply, through ordinary negligence law, to private schools, religious organizations, youth sports clubs, camps, and other institutions that take responsibility for children.
The questions we investigate usually include:
Public and private defendants are not treated the same. A public school district or county is sued under the Government Claims Act and the negligence theories recognized in C.A. v. William S. Hart; a private school, church, or club is sued under general negligence. Public entities are immune from punitive damages (Government Code § 818), and California law can narrow a district’s responsibility for incidents away from school property and outside school supervision (Education Code § 44808). A private institution that covered up abuse can face up to three times the damages; a public entity cannot. An honest evaluation looks at those differences at the start, not after a year of litigation. The side-by-side comparison is in the statute guide.
Youth sports and coaches. Coaches often have exactly the access an abuser looks for: travel, locker rooms, private training, late practices, and trust from parents. Clubs, leagues, gyms, and school athletic departments can be responsible when they ignore warning signs, skip background checks, or fail to supervise.
Churches and religious organizations. A religious institution owes the same basic duty to protect the children in its programs as any other institution. Many of these cases turn on what leadership knew about a clergy member or volunteer and whether that person was moved, kept, or protected after a complaint.
County juvenile facilities, group homes, and foster care. Los Angeles County has faced thousands of claims arising from abuse in juvenile halls, probation camps, and foster placements, and SB 577 directs the Attorney General to investigate abuse in the County’s juvenile facilities and what the County did about it. If you were abused in county custody or in a placement the County arranged, the dates matter under the 2026 changes above, and you should be wary of anyone who offers you money, a loan, or a referral fee to file a claim. A legitimate lawyer does not pay you to become a client.
Camps, after-school programs, and youth organizations. The same questions apply: who was hired, who was warned, and who was supervised.
Colleges and universities. When the student was 18 or older, the adult sexual assault deadlines apply instead of the childhood rules, and claims against public universities may require a government claim within strict deadlines. Those rules have their own exceptions and their own recent changes; get a dated evaluation rather than a guess.
Doctors, therapists, and other professionals. Abuse by a treating professional can create claims against the person and, where the practice or facility ignored complaints or failed to supervise, against the institution as well.
A criminal case is about punishing the abuser. A civil case is about the survivor: what was taken, what it has cost, and who should pay for it. It is also, often, the only proceeding in which the institution itself has to answer for what it knew.
The harm a civil claim seeks to remedy includes the emotional and psychological injury the abuse caused, the way it changed a survivor’s relationships, trust, education, and work, and the cost of therapy and treatment, past and future. Where the abuse derailed a career or an education, lost earnings can be part of the claim. In the $16 million verdict described above, the entire award was for non-economic harm: the jury put a value on what the abuse did to a person, not on medical bills. Against a private institution that concealed abuse, the law can allow up to three times the damages, and punitive damages may be available depending on the facts (Civ. Code § 3294). Against a public entity, neither is available, and the case is built on the actual harm.
Money does not undo what happened. For many survivors, the record matters as much: the personnel file produced in discovery, the former students who testify, the finding that the institution was negligent. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
A confidential first conversation, on your terms. What you tell us while deciding whether to hire us is confidential, even if you never hire us. You do not have to give your name to ask a general question, you do not have to describe what happened in detail, and you do not have to decide anything on the first call. If you prefer, tell us how and when to reach you and we will follow that.
You are not a file number. This is a Torrance trial firm, not a national advertising brand. Your case is worked by the lawyer whose name is on the door, and the people you talk to in the first call are the people who handle your case.
We try cases against institutions, including government entities. The $16 million school sexual abuse verdict was a jury verdict against a public school district. Cases against public entities have their own rules, their own deadlines, and their own defense playbook, and this firm has tried them. David Gammill is a trial lawyer, not a settlement mill: a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney who has tried over 100 cases to verdict, first as a prosecutor and then as a trial lawyer for injured people, he prepares every case as if it will be tried. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
We will tell you the truth about your case. That includes when a deadline has passed or a defendant is immune. If we cannot help, we will say so and try to point you to someone who can.
Investigation. We gather personnel files, prior complaints, policies, communications, and witness accounts, much of it through formal discovery once a case is filed. In the $16 million verdict, what the district knew came out of its own records and the testimony of former students. Abuse cases often involve psychologists and institutional-practices experts who can explain both the harm and what the institution should have done.
Resolution. Many cases settle. Some go to trial. The decision to settle is always yours.
Fees. Gammill Law handles these cases on a contingency fee: no fee unless we recover for you. How that works, including costs, is explained on our no win, no fee page.
Often, yes. California courts can allow a survivor to proceed as “Jane Doe” or “John Doe” when the survivor’s privacy interest overrides the public’s interest in knowing a party’s name, which is a showing abuse survivors can often make. We discuss privacy options before anything is filed. When the survivor is 40 or older, the defendants themselves are named as Does until the court allows a corroborated amendment, so the institution is not publicly accused until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit.
Privacy starts before the case. Our intake does not require an email address, a written account, or a callback at a time you did not choose. You tell us how to reach you and whether a voicemail is safe.
A civil case is separate from any criminal case. You do not need a criminal conviction, or even a police report, to bring a civil claim, although a report often helps.
Yes, in many cases. A California public school district can be responsible when its administrators were negligent in hiring, supervising, or retaining the employee (C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861). Private schools can be responsible under general negligence principles. The $16 million verdict described above was a case against a public school district.
For abuse of a minor on or after January 1, 2024, no. For earlier childhood abuse, generally until age 40, or within a discovery period after you discover, or reasonably should have discovered, that the abuse caused harm you are living with as an adult, whichever is later. That period is five years through December 31, 2026 and three years starting January 1, 2027 (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 340.1, 340.11). Adult survivors have different deadlines.
It shortens the discovery period for pre-2024 abuse, raises the burden of proof for survivors 40 and older who sue a public entity, limits a public entity’s share of economic damages, and requires schools and local agencies to adopt sexual assault prevention plans by December 1, 2027. The details, with the current law and the 2027 law side by side, are in our statute guide.
Not for a childhood sexual assault claim. Other claims against public entities, including some involving adult students, still require a government claim, often within six months.
It may still be possible to file, depending on your age, when you connected adult harm to the abuse, and who the defendant is. The 2020 to 2022 revival window has closed, and SB 577 makes some older claims against public entities harder to prove. Get a dated evaluation rather than assuming either way.
No. Civil cases are separate and use a lower standard of proof, a preponderance of the evidence, except where SB 577’s clear-and-convincing standard applies.
Schools can be responsible for student-on-student abuse when staff knew or should have known of the risk and failed to supervise. These cases depend heavily on the facts, and we evaluate them individually.
The institutional responsibility principles do. The deadlines are different, and some have changed recently. Contact us and we will tell you which rules apply to your dates.
If something happened to you or your child at a school, a team, a church, a camp, a clinic, or a county facility, you can talk to us about it confidentially. You do not have to decide anything on the first call, and you do not have to describe what happened to start the conversation. Tell us how to reach you, when it is safe, and whether we may leave a voicemail.
Or call 310-750-4149. Gammill Law Accident & Injury Lawyers, 3820 Del Amo Blvd, Ste 304, Torrance, CA 90503, serving Los Angeles County and all of California.
This page is attorney advertising and general information, not legal advice for any specific situation. Reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines and outcomes are fact-specific; consult a licensed California attorney about your own circumstances. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
