Code Details

Code of Civil Procedure – CCP
PART 2. OF CIVIL ACTIONS [307 – 1062.34] ( Part 2 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 2. OF THE TIME OF COMMENCING CIVIL ACTIONS [312 – 366.3] ( Title 2 enacted 1872. )

CHAPTER 3. The Time of Commencing Actions Other Than for the Recovery of Real Property [335 – 349.4] ( Chapter 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

(a) There is no time limit for the commencement of any of the following actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault:

(1) An action against any person for committing an act of childhood sexual assault.

(2) An action for liability against any person or entity who owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, if a wrongful or negligent act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.

(3) An action for liability against any person or entity if an intentional act by that person or entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual assault that resulted in the injury to the plaintiff.

(b) (1) In an action described in subdivision (a), a person who is sexually assaulted and proves it was as the result of a cover up may recover up to treble damages against a defendant who is found to have covered up the sexual assault of a minor, unless prohibited by another law.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, a “cover up” is a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to childhood sexual assault.

(c) “Childhood sexual assault” as used in this section includes any act committed against the plaintiff that occurred when the plaintiff was under the age of 18 years and that would have been proscribed by Section 266j of the Penal Code; Section 285 of the Penal Code; paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b), or of subdivision (c), of Section 286 of the Penal Code; subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 288 of the Penal Code; paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (b), or of subdivision (c), of Section 287 or of former Section 288a of the Penal Code; subdivision (h), (i), or (j) of Section 289 of the Penal Code; any sexual conduct as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 311.4 of the Penal Code; Section 647.6 of the Penal Code; or any prior laws of this state of similar effect at the time the act was committed. This subdivision does not limit the availability of causes of action permitted under subdivision (a), including causes of action against persons or entities other than the alleged perpetrator of the abuse.

(d) This section shall not be construed to alter the otherwise applicable burden of proof, as defined in Section 115 of the Evidence Code, that a plaintiff has in a civil action subject to this section.

(e) Every plaintiff 40 years of age or older at the time the action is filed shall file certificates of merit as specified in subdivision (f).

(f) Certificates of merit setting forth the facts that support the declaration shall be executed by the attorney for the plaintiff and by a licensed mental health practitioner selected by the plaintiff declaring, respectively, as follows:

(1) That the attorney has reviewed the facts of the case, consulted with at least one mental health practitioner who the attorney reasonably believes is knowledgeable of the relevant facts and issues involved in the particular action, and concluded on the basis of that review and consultation that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action.

(2) That the mental health practitioner consulted is licensed to practice and practices in this state and is not a party to the action, that the practitioner is not treating and has not treated the plaintiff, and that the practitioner has interviewed the plaintiff and is knowledgeable of the relevant facts and issues involved in the particular action, and has concluded, on the basis of the practitioner’s knowledge of the facts and issues, that in the practitioner’s professional opinion there is a reasonable basis to believe that the plaintiff had been subject to childhood sexual abuse.

(g) If certificates are required pursuant to subdivision (e), the attorney for the plaintiff shall execute a separate certificate of merit for each defendant named in the complaint.

(h) In any action subject to subdivision (e), a defendant shall not be served, and the duty to serve a defendant with process does not attach, until the court has reviewed the certificates of merit filed pursuant to subdivision (f) with respect to that defendant, and has found, in camera, based solely on those certificates of merit, that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the filing of the action against that defendant. At that time, the duty to serve that defendant with process shall attach.

(i) A violation of this section may constitute unprofessional conduct and may be the grounds for discipline against the attorney.

(j) The failure to file certificates in accordance with this section shall be grounds for a demurrer pursuant to Section 430.10 or a motion to strike pursuant to Section 435.

(k) In any action subject to subdivision (e), a defendant shall be named by “Doe” designation in any pleadings or papers filed in the action until there has been a showing of corroborative fact as to the charging allegations against that defendant.

(l) At any time after the action is filed, the plaintiff may apply to the court for permission to amend the complaint to substitute the name of the defendant or defendants for the fictitious designation, as follows:

(1) The application shall be accompanied by a certificate of corroborative fact executed by the attorney for the plaintiff. The certificate shall declare that the attorney has discovered one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant or defendants, and shall set forth in clear and concise terms the nature and substance of the corroborative fact. If the corroborative fact is evidenced by the statement of a witness or the contents of a document, the certificate shall declare that the attorney has personal knowledge of the statement of the witness or of the contents of the document, and the identity and location of the witness or document shall be included in the certificate. For purposes of this section, a fact is corroborative of an allegation if it confirms or supports the allegation. The opinion of any mental health practitioner concerning the plaintiff shall not constitute a corroborative fact for purposes of this section.

(2) If the application to name a defendant is made before that defendant’s appearance in the action, neither the application nor the certificate of corroborative fact by the attorney shall be served on the defendant or defendants, nor on any other party or their counsel of record.

(3) If the application to name a defendant is made after that defendant’s appearance in the action, the application shall be served on all parties and proof of service provided to the court, but the certificate of corroborative fact by the attorney shall not be served on any party or their counsel of record.

(m) The court shall review the application and the certificate of corroborative fact in camera and, based solely on the certificate and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the certificate, shall, if one or more facts corroborative of one or more of the charging allegations against a defendant has been shown, order that the complaint may be amended to substitute the name of the defendant or defendants.

(n) The court shall keep under seal and confidential from the public and all parties to the litigation, other than the plaintiff, any and all certificates of corroborative fact filed pursuant to subdivision (l).

(o) Upon the favorable conclusion of the litigation with respect to any defendant for whom a certificate of merit was filed or for whom a certificate of merit should have been filed pursuant to this section, the court may, upon the motion of a party or upon the court’s own motion, verify compliance with this section by requiring the attorney for the plaintiff who was required by subdivision (f) to execute the certificate to reveal the name, address, and telephone number of the person or persons consulted with pursuant to subdivision (f) that were relied upon by the attorney in preparation of the certificate of merit. The name, address, and telephone number shall be disclosed to the trial judge in camera and in the absence of the moving party. If the court finds there has been a failure to comply with this section, the court may order a party, a party’s attorney, or both, to pay any reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the defendant for whom a certificate of merit should have been filed.

(p) This section applies to any claim in which the childhood sexual assault occurred on and after January 1, 2024. Notwithstanding any other law, a claim for damages based on conduct described in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a), in which the childhood sexual assault occurred on or before December 31, 2023 may only be commenced pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations set forth in existing law as it read on December 31, 2023.

(q) Notwithstanding any other law, including Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 900) and Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code (commencing with Section 910), a claim for damages described in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a), is not required to be presented to any government entity prior to the commencement of an action.

(Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 655, Sec. 1. (AB 452) Effective January 1, 2024.)

CCP § 340.1 Summary

California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, effective January 1, 2024, eliminates the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits seeking damages for childhood sexual assault. This means survivors can file a lawsuit at any age, regardless of when the abuse occurred. The law applies to actions against the direct perpetrator, as well as against any person or entity whose wrongful, negligent, or intentional act was a legal cause of the assault.

The statute also introduces several key provisions:

• Treble Damages for Cover-Up: If a childhood sexual assault was covered up, the victim may recover up to triple damages against the defendant found responsible for the cover-up. A “cover up” is defined as a concerted effort to hide evidence related to the assault.
• Definition of Childhood Sexual Assault: The statute defines “childhood sexual assault” by referencing specific Penal Code sections that describe various sexual offenses committed against a person under 18 years of age.
• No Change to Burden of Proof: The plaintiff still bears the standard burden of proof in civil cases.
• Certificates of Merit: Plaintiffs who are 40 years of age or older at the time of filing must submit “certificates of merit.” These certificates, from both the plaintiff’s attorney and a licensed mental health practitioner, affirm that there is reasonable and meritorious cause for the action. The court reviews these certificates in camera (privately) before a defendant can be served.
• “Doe” Designation and Corroborative Fact: For plaintiffs aged 40 or older, defendants must initially be named fictitiously (e.g., “Doe”). The plaintiff can only substitute the defendant’s true name after the attorney files a “certificate of corroborative fact,” demonstrating actual evidence supporting the allegations against that specific defendant. This certificate is also reviewed in camera and remains confidential.
• Professional Conduct: Failure to comply with the certificate requirements can lead to attorney discipline, demurrer, or motion to strike.
• Applicability Date: This unlimited statute of limitations applies only to claims where the childhood sexual assault occurred on or after January 1, 2024. For assaults that occurred before December 31, 2023, the statute of limitations laws in effect as of that date apply.
• Government Claims Exemption: Claims under this section are explicitly exempt from the requirement of being presented to a government entity before filing a lawsuit.

Purpose of CCP § 340.1

The legislative purpose behind Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 is to significantly expand access to justice for survivors of childhood sexual assault in California. Historically, statutes of limitations often barred adult survivors from pursuing civil claims against their abusers or negligent institutions, even decades after the abuse occurred. This was largely due to the delayed nature of trauma, where survivors may suppress memories or not fully comprehend the impact of the abuse until much later in life.

By removing the time limit for commencing these actions for claims arising on or after January 1, 2024, the law acknowledges the profound and lasting psychological effects of childhood sexual assault and seeks to overcome the legal barriers that prevented survivors from seeking accountability. It aims to hold perpetrators, as well as those who enabled or covered up the abuse, responsible for their actions.

The procedural safeguards introduced, such as certificates of merit and corroborative fact requirements for older plaintiffs, serve to balance this expanded access with the need to prevent frivolous claims. These measures ensure that claims have a reasonable factual and professional basis before proceeding, while still prioritizing the victim’s ability to come forward regardless of time. Ultimately, CCP § 340.1 is a victim-centered statute designed to empower survivors and promote accountability in cases of childhood sexual assault.

Real-World Example of CCP § 340.1

Imagine Sarah, now 58 years old, who endured sexual abuse by her soccer coach when she was 12. For decades, the trauma prevented her from speaking out or even fully processing what happened. She struggled with depression and anxiety, but only recently, through therapy, has she truly confronted the impact of the abuse and felt ready to seek justice.

Under prior laws, Sarah might have been barred from filing a lawsuit due to the statute of limitations, as many years had passed since her 18th birthday. However, because the abuse occurred in 2025 (on or after January 1, 2024, for the purpose of this example), CCP § 340.1 applies to her case.

Sarah decides to consult with a personal injury attorney specializing in childhood sexual abuse. Her attorney advises her that due to her age (over 40), she will need to file certificates of merit. This involves:

1. Attorney’s Certificate: Her attorney will review the case facts and consult with a mental health professional to conclude there’s a reasonable and meritorious cause for the lawsuit.
2. Mental Health Practitioner’s Certificate: A licensed mental health practitioner, who is not Sarah’s current therapist, will interview Sarah and provide a professional opinion that there’s a reasonable basis to believe she experienced childhood sexual abuse.

Initially, her lawsuit will name “Doe” defendants for the coach and the soccer league. After the court confidentially reviews the certificates of merit and finds reasonable cause, Sarah’s attorney will then work to gather corroborative facts – for instance, an old letter from another team member hinting at the coach’s inappropriate behavior, or a statement from a former teammate who witnessed the coach’s undue closeness to children. Once these facts are discovered, her attorney will file a certificate of corroborative fact, allowing the court to permit Sarah to amend her complaint to name the coach and the league directly, moving her closer to seeking the justice she deserves.

Related Statutes

Several statutes are directly related to or commonly referenced alongside Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, providing context for its application:

• Penal Code Sections (e.g., §§ 266j, 285, 286, 288, 289, 647.6): These sections are specifically enumerated in CCP § 340.1(c) to define what constitutes “childhood sexual assault.” They describe various sexual offenses, such as continuous sexual abuse of a child, lewd acts with a child, sexual penetration, and child molestation, establishing the criminal acts that form the basis for civil claims under this statute.
• Evidence Code § 115: Referenced in CCP § 340.1(d), this section defines “burden of proof.” CCP § 340.1 clarifies that while it removes the statute of limitations, it does not alter the plaintiff’s fundamental responsibility to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence in a civil action.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 (Demurrer) & § 435 (Motion to Strike): These procedural statutes, mentioned in CCP § 340.1(j), allow defendants to challenge a complaint if it fails to meet legal requirements. Specifically, failure to file the required certificates of merit can lead to a demurrer (claiming the complaint doesn’t state a cause of action) or a motion to strike (requesting parts of the complaint to be removed).
• Government Code §§ 900 et seq. (Government Claims Act): CCP § 340.1(q) explicitly exempts claims for childhood sexual assault from the requirements of the Government Claims Act. This is significant because, ordinarily, a person seeking to sue a government entity (like a public school district) must first file an administrative claim within a short timeframe, typically six months, before filing a lawsuit. This exemption removes that procedural hurdle for survivors.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 340.15 & § 340.8: While CCP § 340.1, as amended for 2024, introduces an unlimited statute of limitations for *new* claims, prior versions of CCP § 340.1 and related statutes like CCP § 340.15 and CCP § 340.8 established different, extended statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse, often incorporating delayed discovery rules. CCP § 340.1(p) specifically states that claims for assaults occurring before December 31, 2023, are governed by the “applicable statute of limitations set forth in existing law as it read on December 31, 2023.” This means these older statutes or specific revival windows enacted in previous years (e.g., AB 218, AB 158) remain relevant for historical claims.

## Case Law Interpreting CCP § 340.1

Given that Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 was substantially amended, effective January 1, 2024, published appellate case law specifically interpreting the nuances of the *new* language, particularly concerning the unlimited time limit and the new certificate requirements, is still developing. However, prior versions of CCP § 340.1 and related statutes regarding childhood sexual abuse have been the subject of extensive litigation, establishing principles that may inform future interpretations.

Here are examples of case law discussing earlier iterations and related statutes, which provide important context:

• [Doe v. The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Diego (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 420](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17865766299105436399&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr): This case involved the interpretation of CCP § 340.1 and the delayed discovery rule. The court discussed the legislative intent to provide a longer statute of limitations for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, acknowledging the difficulties victims face in recalling or understanding the abuse.
• [Chaney v. The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 124](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17789437148560371607&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr): While focusing on the constitutionality and application of California’s revival statutes (which temporarily lifted time limits for older claims), this case also discusses the general legislative efforts and policy reasons behind extending statutes of limitations for childhood sexual abuse, echoing the spirit of CCP § 340.1.
• [Curtis v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 389](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13840733075217822941&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr): This case addressed the application of CCP § 340.1 and the delayed discovery rule, specifically concerning the accrual of a cause of action for childhood sexual abuse. It emphasized that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known that the injury was caused by the sexual abuse.

It is important for legal professionals to monitor new appellate decisions that may emerge to interpret the specific provisions of the amended CCP § 340.1.

Why CCP § 340.1 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 represents a monumental shift in personal injury litigation concerning childhood sexual assault in California. Its impact is profound for both plaintiffs and defendants:

For Plaintiffs (Survivors of Childhood Sexual Assault):

• Unprecedented Access to Justice: The removal of the statute of limitations for claims involving assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2024, means survivors can pursue civil accountability no matter how much time has passed. This removes a significant legal barrier that previously denied many victims their day in court due to the delayed psychological effects of trauma.
• Empowerment and Healing: The ability to seek legal recourse can be a crucial step in a survivor’s healing journey, offering a sense of empowerment and validation that was previously unattainable.
• Broader Scope of Defendants: The statute clearly allows actions not only against direct perpetrators but also against negligent or intentional third parties (e.g., institutions, organizations) whose actions contributed to the abuse.
• Potential for Treble Damages: The provision for treble damages in “cover-up” scenarios provides a powerful incentive for accountability against institutions or individuals who actively concealed abuse.
• Exemption from Government Claims Act: This eliminates a major hurdle for survivors suing public entities, making it easier to hold government-run institutions accountable.

For Defendants (Perpetrators, Institutions, Organizations):

• Perpetual Liability: For acts of childhood sexual assault committed on or after January 1, 2024, potential defendants face lifelong civil liability, increasing the urgency for proactive prevention and reporting measures.
• Enhanced Scrutiny and Due Diligence: Institutions (schools, churches, youth organizations) must ensure robust child protection policies, thorough background checks, and effective reporting mechanisms to mitigate the risk of future liability.
• Procedural Hurdles: While liability is expanded, the procedural requirements (certificates of merit, corroborative fact) for plaintiffs 40 and older introduce a necessary mechanism for defendants to ensure claims are not entirely speculative before costly litigation proceeds. However, these in-camera reviews are conducted without the defendant’s immediate input.
• Risk of Treble Damages: Defendants, particularly institutions, face heightened financial risk if a “cover-up” can be proven, making transparent and swift responses to allegations critical.
• Impact on Insurance and Risk Management: Insurers and organizations will need to reassess risk exposure and policy coverages in light of the expanded liability and potential for claims from decades past.

In essence, CCP § 340.1 significantly reshapes the landscape of childhood sexual assault litigation in California, prioritizing victim recovery and institutional accountability while establishing new procedural considerations for both sides.