GET A FREE CONSULTATION
310-750-4149
By David Gammill · Last reviewed: October 23, 2026 · Covers SB 577 (Stats. 2026, ch. 971), operative January 1, 2027
Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 and § 340.11 set California’s deadlines for civil lawsuits over childhood sexual assault. Section 340.12, added in 2026, raises the burden of proof for some older survivors who sue a public entity. This guide explains all three as they read today, what Senate Bill 577 changes on January 1, 2027, and how the rules differ for public and private defendants.
Short answer: If the abuse happened when you were under 18 and on or after January 1, 2024, there is no deadline to file (§ 340.1). If you were under 18 and the abuse happened before 2024, you have until 22 years after your 18th birthday, which is age 40, or until the end of a discovery period that runs from the date you discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, that psychological injury you experienced as an adult was caused by the abuse, whichever is later (§ 340.11). The discovery period is five years through December 31, 2026 and three years starting January 1, 2027. Survivors who were adults when the assault happened are covered by a different section and different deadlines.
This page is general information, not legal advice. The right deadline depends on your dates, your age when you file, and who the defendant is.
California now has two statutes for childhood sexual assault, split by when the abuse happened. Both define childhood sexual assault as an act committed against the plaintiff while the plaintiff was under 18 that would have violated one of a list of Penal Code sections.
| Abuse occurred | Statute | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| On or after January 1, 2024 | Code Civ. Proc. § 340.1 | None. There is no time limit to sue the abuser, a person or entity that owed the survivor a duty of care and whose wrongful or negligent act was a legal cause of the assault, or a person or entity whose intentional act was a legal cause of it |
| Before January 1, 2024 | Code Civ. Proc. § 340.11 | Within 22 years of turning 18 (age 40), or within the discovery period, whichever is later |
Both sections reach the same three kinds of defendants: the person who committed the assault, any person or entity that owed the survivor a duty of care and negligently caused the assault, and any person or entity whose intentional act caused it. A school district, a church, a youth sports club, a county, or a clinic is sued under the second or third category.
Many survivors do not connect adult depression, anxiety, substance use, or difficulty with relationships to childhood abuse until decades later. Section 340.11 accounts for that with a discovery period that starts when the survivor “discovers or reasonably should have discovered” that psychological injury or illness occurring after age 18 was caused by the assault. Two features matter:
| Discovery period | Length |
|---|---|
| Through December 31, 2026 | Five years from discovery or constructive discovery |
| Starting January 1, 2027 (SB 577) | Three years from discovery or constructive discovery |
Section 340.11 also sets the deadline for claims based on obscene matter depicting the survivor as a child: the same 22 years or discovery period, running from when the survivor discovers or reasonably should have discovered, after turning 18, that the material exists.
Both sections treat a plaintiff who is 40 or older at filing differently. The requirements below come from the statutes as amended by SB 577; where a rule is new, the table says so.
Under § 340.11(c), a survivor who is 40 or older cannot sue a person or entity other than the abuser unless that person or entity knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of misconduct that created a risk of childhood sexual assault by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, or failed to take reasonable steps or implement reasonable safeguards to avoid it. This has been the rule since 2020 and SB 577 does not change it for private defendants.
For public entities, SB 577 adds § 340.12. A survivor who is 40 or older and files against a public entity on or after January 1, 2026, over pre-2024 abuse, must prove two things by clear and convincing evidence: that the public entity knew of misconduct that resulted in childhood sexual assault by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent and failed to take reasonable steps or implement reasonable safeguards, and that the public entity negligently discharged a mandatory duty. The section is operative January 1, 2027 but reaches cases filed during 2026. It does not apply to a case in which a judgment has been entered or that is subject to a final settlement. Section 340.12 also lists factors a court must weigh on a motion to reduce a verdict against a public entity, including the entity’s public mission and economic status, whether the award is compensatory, and the egregiousness of the conduct, and it lets a public entity elect to pay a judgment over time.
“Clear and convincing evidence” is a higher standard than the preponderance of the evidence that governs most civil cases. It is still lower than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every plaintiff who is 40 or older at filing must file certificates of merit, under either section. The attorney’s certificate declares that the attorney reviewed the facts, including court records and available documentation, consulted at least one mental health practitioner knowledgeable about the issues, and concluded there is reasonable and meritorious cause to file. A licensed California mental health practitioner who is not treating the plaintiff and is not a party files a second certificate declaring that they interviewed the plaintiff and believe there is a reasonable basis to conclude the plaintiff was subjected to childhood sexual abuse. The attorney files a separate certificate for each defendant named.
The certificates protect defendants and survivors at the same time. No defendant is served until the court has reviewed the certificates privately, in camera, and found reasonable and meritorious cause as to that defendant. Until the survivor’s lawyer shows the court a corroborative fact, every defendant is named by Doe designation, and the certificate of corroborative fact is kept under seal from the public and from the other parties. An institution is not publicly accused on the strength of a filing alone.
| Through December 31, 2026 | Starting January 1, 2027 (SB 577) | |
|---|---|---|
| When the certificates are filed | The statute requires them; a complaint filed without them is subject to demurrer or a motion to strike | Concurrently with the complaint. The clerk will not accept a complaint that lacks them |
| What the attorney certificate declares | Review of the facts, consultation with a practitioner, and reasonable and meritorious cause | The same, plus that the attorney is licensed in California and in good standing with the State Bar |
| If a deadline is about to run before the consultation can happen | Under § 340.11, the attorney may file a certificate declaring that the consultation could not be obtained before the statute of limitations would impair the action, and then file both certificates within 60 days after the complaint | That exception remains in § 340.11 as amended. It has no counterpart in § 340.1, which has no limitations period to impair |
| Doe designation and in camera review before service | Required | Unchanged |
The deadlines are the same for both. Almost everything else differs.
| Public entity (school district, county, city, public university) | Private defendant (private or religious school, church, club, camp, clinic) | |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of institutional liability | Government Code § 815.2 and the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention theories recognized in C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861 | General negligence and related claims |
| Government claim before suing | Not required for a childhood sexual assault claim (§§ 340.1, 340.11) | Not applicable |
| Survivor 40 or older, pre-2024 abuse | Clear and convincing proof of both § 340.12 elements, in cases filed on or after January 1, 2026 | Knew, had reason to know, was on notice, or failed to take reasonable safeguards (§ 340.11(c)), by a preponderance of the evidence |
| Cover-up (treble) damages | Not available. The California Supreme Court held in Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 758 that treble damages under § 340.1(b) are punitive and barred against public entities by Government Code § 818; SB 577 writes that into §§ 340.1(b)(3) and 340.11(b)(3) | Up to three times the damages against a defendant found to have engaged in a concerted effort to hide evidence of the assault (§ 340.1(b), § 340.11(b)) |
| Punitive damages | Not available (Gov. Code § 818) | May be available on the facts (Civ. Code § 3294) |
| Share of a verdict with more than one defendant | In cases filed on or after January 1, 2027, economic damages are several only, not joint, unless the public entity is more than 15 percent at fault (Civ. Code § 1431.2(a)(2)). Non-economic damages were already several only | Economic damages joint and several; non-economic damages several only (Civ. Code § 1431.2(a)(1)) |
| Reduction of a verdict | If the plaintiff is 40 or older, the court weighs the § 340.12(b) factors on a motion for remittitur, and the entity may elect to pay over time | Ordinary remittitur rules |
Charter schools. A charter school does not fall automatically into either column. Whether it is treated as a public entity, with the immunities and the § 340.12 burden that come with it, or as a private defendant depends on who operates it and how it is organized, and the answer has to be worked out for the particular school before the deadline and damages rules can be applied. Treat the question as open until a lawyer has looked at the school’s charter and operating entity.
Governor Newsom signed SB 577 (Laird) on September 30, 2026. It is Chapter 971 of the Statutes of 2026 and takes effect January 1, 2027. The parts that touch civil claims:
SB 577 does not revive any expired claim, does not cap damages, and does not change the no-deadline rule for abuse on or after January 1, 2024. Earlier reporting that the bill would require proof that records were destroyed does not match the chaptered text.
Abused at 14 in 2025 by a coach at a public high school. Section 340.1 applies. No deadline. No government claim. If the survivor waits until 40 or older to file, certificates of merit are required.
Abused at 12 in 1998 by a youth pastor; now 40; connected the abuse to adult depression in therapy in 2024. Section 340.11 applies. Age 40 was reached in 2026, but the discovery period runs from 2024: five years if the case is filed by December 31, 2026, three years from discovery once SB 577 is operative. The church is a private defendant, so the § 340.11(c) knowledge-or-safeguards showing applies by a preponderance of the evidence, and treble and punitive damages are possible on the right facts. Certificates of merit are required because the survivor is 40 or older.
Abused at 15 in 1990 by a teacher at a public school; now 51; connected the abuse to adult harm in 2025; case filed in 2026. Section 340.11 applies, with the discovery period running from 2025. Because the defendant is a public entity, the survivor is over 40, the abuse was before 2024, and the case was filed on or after January 1, 2026, § 340.12 applies once operative: both elements by clear and convincing evidence. No treble damages, no punitive damages, and if the case is filed on or after January 1, 2027 the district’s share of economic damages is several only unless the district is more than 15 percent at fault. Certificates of merit required; from 2027, filed with the complaint.
Assaulted at 19 in a university dorm. Neither section applies; the survivor was not a minor. Adult sexual assault has its own limitations section and, where the defendant is a public university, a government claim may be required. Get the dates evaluated under those rules, not these.
Not for abuse on or after January 1, 2024. For earlier abuse, the later of age 40 or the discovery period under § 340.11, which is five years through 2026 and three years from January 1, 2027.
That a reasonable person in the survivor’s position would have made the connection between the abuse and adult psychological injury by a certain date, even if the survivor did not. Defendants use it to argue the discovery period started earlier than the survivor says. It is a fact question decided on the survivor’s history, treatment, and what they understood when.
The § 340.12 burden reaches cases filed on or after January 1, 2026 against a public entity by a survivor 40 or older over pre-2024 abuse, unless a judgment has been entered or the case is subject to a final settlement. The three-year discovery period and the certificate filing rules are operative January 1, 2027. The several-liability change applies to cases filed on or after January 1, 2027.
No. Both § 340.1 and § 340.11 exempt childhood sexual assault claims from the Government Claims Act presentation requirement. Claims by adult survivors against public entities are different; see our guide to the government claim deadline.
A sworn declaration filed by the survivor’s attorney, and a second one by an independent licensed mental health practitioner, stating that there is reasonable cause to bring the claim. Required of every plaintiff 40 or older. The court reviews them privately before any defendant is served.
No. The California Supreme Court held in 2023 that the treble damages provision is punitive and that Government Code § 818 bars it against public entities, and SB 577 adds that rule to the statute. A private institution that covered up abuse can face up to three times the damages.
The current text of § 340.1 and § 340.11, and the chaptered text of SB 577, are on the Legislature’s site. Until January 1, 2027, the code sections show the law in force today and the bill shows what is coming.
Gammill Law represents survivors and families in civil cases against schools, youth organizations, religious institutions, county facilities, and other institutions. Our Los Angeles sexual abuse lawyer page explains who we help, what contacting us involves, and how a survivor’s identity can be protected. You can read either page without contacting anyone.
David Gammill is a California trial attorney and the founder of Gammill Law Accident & Injury Lawyers in Torrance. A former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he has tried over 100 cases to verdict, first as a prosecutor and then as a trial lawyer for injured people. Gammill Law has recovered more than $100 million for California clients across verdicts and settlements. Its results include a $21.1 million wrongful death verdict, a $16 million school sexual abuse verdict, and a $12 million whistleblower retaliation verdict; every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
This page is general legal information and attorney advertising, not legal advice for any specific situation. Statutes change and deadlines are fact-specific; consult a licensed California attorney about your own circumstances.
