Assembly passes bill to extend limit on filing some sex assault civil claims

The Assembly passed on a 65-0 vote Thursday a bill to extend the statute of limitations for civil claims against a doctor over sexually inappropriate conduct at a student health center that would otherwise be time-barred.

The bill’s specificity, and its reference to misdeeds alleged to have occurred between Jan. 1, 1988 and Jan. 1, 2017, make clear the legislation is aimed at any former USC student who wished to individually sue the former campus health center doctor, George Tyndall, but faced the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

This type of targeted legislation is not new, said the bill’s author, Assemblymember Elois Reyes, D-San Bernardino.

“The Legislature in other contexts has passed bills related to the statute of limitations and sexual assault in civil suits, for example in the church abuse scandals, when the Legislature extended the statute,” Reyes said Thursday from her Sacramento office.

However, USC, through its legal counsel, said the bill actually undermines a $215 million federal class settlement that encompasses more than 14,000 women and includes those whose claims were time-barred or who did not wish to go through discovery and litigation.

The attorneys said the bill would open the floodgates of litigation against small and large colleges and universities around the state and dissuade doctors from working on campuses.

A letter from USC’s counsel, Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni LLP, sent to the judiciary committee chairs of both houses of the Legislature on April 1 said, “All of the plaintiffs that are the focus of this legislation have the option for a fair, respectful and certain remedy available to them, even if their claims arose 20 years ago.”

The minimum payout is $2,500 for women who do not wish to answer any questions about their experience, said the letter emailed by the university Thursday in response to a request for comment on the Assembly action.

AB 1510, which now heads to the state Senate, creates a one-year window to revive time-barred civil actions only for claims for damages “arising out of sexual assault or other inappropriate contact, community or activity of a sexual nature by a physician occurring at a student health center.”

Reyes criticized limitation statutes in general in an April 24 press conference in support of her bill, saying: “The systemic failure continues when we try to bring our case in a California court of law and are met with antiquated deadlines and a statute of limitations law that threatens to extinguish our rights and voices.”

Addressing that view in its letter, Nielsen Merksamer wrote, “Although it may appear unfair to bar actions after the statute of limitations has lapsed, the limitations period serves important policy goals that help to preserve both the integrity of our legal system and the due process rights of individuals.”

If the bill, co-authored by state Sen. Connie M. Leyva, D-San Bernardino, passes the Senate, alleged victims whose claims for damages were not filed within the recently extended 10-year statutory time periodb and expired prior to Jan. 1, 2020, would have until Jan. 1, 2021 to file.

This one-year revival window would not apply to any claim litigated to finality in court, or to any case settled before Jan. 1, 2020.

“As many as 650 former Tyndall patients have filed civil lawsuits in state court against Tyndall and USC for sexual battery and related sexual abuse, but USC will likely seek dismissal of these assault claims, claiming they are time-barred,” according to a news release from the Consumer Attorneys of California, which sponsored the bill. “AB 1510 is vital to giving Tyndall survivors their day in a California civil court.”

Nielsen Merksamer’s letter states, “The sponsors of AB 1510 know full well that the proposed federal settlement allows for a plaintiff to participate in the settlement without legal representation. ... AB 1510 changes the rules because some in the plaintiffs’ bar are seeking larger settlements and more leverage.”

The bill clarifies it is not necessary for a criminal prosecution to have been brought as a result of the alleged sexual assault for the statute of limitations window to apply.