Coats v. New Haven Unified School Dist.

Summary

E.D. Coats (Coats) and her foster mother, (collectively Appellants) sued the New Haven Unified School District (District) and others alleging that Coats had been sexually abused by one of her high school teachers when Coats was 17 years old. Appellants alleged that they were not required to present a claim to the District under the Government Claims Act due to the exemption for claims of sexual abuse of a minor stated in Section 905(m). District moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that notwithstanding Section 905(m), Coats was required to present a claim to the District pursuant to a District regulation adopted under the authority of Section 935. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.

Reversed in part. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) that has not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2020, because the applicable statute of limitations, claim presentation deadline, or any other time limit had expired, is revived, and these claims may be commenced within three years of January 1, 2020. Code of Civil Procedure Section 340.1(q). Section 905(m) excepted the claims made pursuant Section 340.1, allowing them to be presented outside the six-months window of accrual of the injury. However, Section 935 allowed local entities to prescribe claims presentation requirements for claims excepted by Section 905. District's policy required a claim presentation. In 2019, Assembly Bill No. 218 was signed into law, adding subdivision (q) to Section 340.1 that provides a claim revival provision. District did not argue that the claim revival provisions could be construed as punitive for ex post facto purposes, nor offered reason to find it unconstitutional. The legislature made clear its intent to revive causes of action previously barred by government claims presentation requirements. Due to the express revival provision in Section 340.1(q) it was not necessary to address the merits of appellants' argument and it was proper to remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

— Carlo Nardone