O.B. v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that Assembly Bill 218 does not violate the California Constitution's gift clause by retroactively eliminating the Government Claims Act claims-presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims against public entities. The court concluded that AB 218 removed an obstacle to recovery rather than creating new substantive liability, because the school district could already have been substantively liable for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision. The court reversed the order granting judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint, and remanded with directions to deny the motion.

Holdings

1. Assembly Bill 218 does not violate the gift clause because it did not create new substantive liability; it removed an obstacle to suing to enforce liability that already existed under Government Code section 815.2.
2. The claims-presentation requirement is a condition precedent to maintaining an action and an element that may need to be pleaded and proved, but it is not an element of the public entity's substantive liability.
3. The trial court erred by granting LAUSD's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing O.B.'s complaint because AB 218 did not violate the gift clause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Assembly Bill 218's retroactive elimination of the Government Claims Act claims-presentation requirement for childhood sexual assault claims violated the gift clause of article XVI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
2. Whether the claims-presentation requirement was an aspect of LAUSD's substantive liability such that its retroactive elimination created new liability in violation of the gift clause.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted LAUSD's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed O.B.'s complaint.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded