Pollak, Vida & Barer

In O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, ordered published August 27, 2025, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 1 reversed judgment on the pleadings granted to the defendant district. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in 2021 arising out of alleged sexual assault by a teacher in 2003. The plaintiff alleged that the district was liable for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision under Government Code sections 815.2, 815.3, and 815.6, and alleged that the action was exempt from the Government Claims Act under Government Code section 905. The district moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Assembly Bill 218–which amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 in 2019 to add a three-year window for filing childhood sexual abuse lawsuits barred by the failure to timely present a claim–was an unconstitutional gift of public funds, in violation of Article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution. The trial court agreed.

The appellate court disagreed. Under the California Constitution, the Legislature cannot create a liability against the state for any past act of negligence of its officers, agents, or employees, because to do so would be the making of a gift of public funds. In 2003, a public entity could be held liable under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820 for the negligence of its supervisory employees in hiring or supervising an employee who sexually abuses a student. Further, although case law establishes that timely claim presentation is an element of a cause of action against a public entity, these cases do not establish that a claim is an element of the entity’s substantive liability. It is not. Government Code section 950.8 provides that nothing in the claim-presentation statutes in the Government Claims Act imposes liability upon a public entity unless such liability already exists. Thus, only statutes outside the claim presentation requirement impose substantive liability. Thus, by reviving causes of action barred by the failure to present a timely claim, AB 218 did not create a new substantive liability, and did not violate the gift clause.