Los Angeles Workplace Sexual Abuse Attorney

AB 2777 amended California Code of Civil Procedure §340.16 to create a three-year revival window, open from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026, allowing adult survivors to revive time-barred sexual assault claims against institutions such as Los Angeles-area colleges and universities. The window covers assaults that occurred on or after January 1, 2009, where the institution knew or had reason to know of the abuser’s unlawful conduct. Once the December 31, 2026 deadline passes, previously time-barred claims cannot be revived under this law, making it critical to consult an attorney immediately.

AB 2777 creates third-party institutional liability by allowing adult survivors (age 18 or older at the time of assault) to hold institutions—including private universities such as USC, Loyola Marymount, Occidental College, and Pepperdine—liable if the institution had notice of an employee’s, volunteer’s, or agent’s unlawful sexual conduct and failed to act. The revival window under CCP §340.16 resurrects claims that had previously expired under the standard two-year statute of limitations for adult sexual assault under CCP §335.1. Survivors must file their lawsuit before December 31, 2026, to take advantage of this window.

AB 218 amended CCP §340.1 to extend the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims—covering abuse that occurred before age 18—to the later of age 40 or within five years of discovering the causal connection between the abuse and resulting injuries. This law is particularly relevant for students in dual-enrollment programs at Los Angeles community colleges or university-affiliated programs where abuse occurred while a victim was still a minor. Although AB 218’s lookback window closed December 31, 2022, the extended forward-looking statute of limitations under CCP §340.1 remains in effect for survivors who have not yet reached age 40.

Yes—private universities such as the University of Southern California, Loyola Marymount University, and Occidental College are subject to California negligence law and can be held liable for negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and failure to implement adequate Title IX safeguards. USC has already faced institutional liability exposure exceeding $1.1 billion in settlements arising from the Dr. George Tyndall scandal, establishing that private university liability in California sexual abuse cases is well recognized. Under AB 2777’s revival window, claims against private institutions that were previously time-barred may be revived through December 31, 2026.

Under California Government Code §905 et seq., survivors filing civil claims against public universities—including UCLA, Cal State Los Angeles, Cal State Northridge, and Cal State Dominguez Hills—must first submit a government tort claim to the institution within six months of the date of the incident before filing a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. Failure to comply with this administrative prerequisite can permanently bar a survivor’s civil lawsuit regardless of the merit of the underlying claim. Attorneys representing campus sexual abuse survivors against public universities must navigate both the Government Claims Act requirements and the AB 2777 revival window simultaneously.

Liable parties in Los Angeles campus sexual abuse cases may include the university or college itself (under negligent hiring, negligent supervision, or negligent retention theories), the individual perpetrator, national fraternity or sorority organizations, third-party contractors who employed the abuser, and university-affiliated housing providers. California’s respondeat superior doctrine under Civil Code §2338 holds employers liable for employee misconduct within the scope of employment, and institutions face direct liability when they knew or should have known of an abuser’s prior conduct and failed to act. AB 2777 (CCP §340.16) specifically extends this institutional liability to claims arising from assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2009.

California campus sexual abuse survivors may recover economic damages including past and future medical expenses, therapy and counseling costs, and lost earning capacity, as well as non-economic damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life under Civil Code §1431.2. In cases involving egregious institutional conduct—such as a university concealing known abuse or retaliating against a survivor—punitive damages may be awarded under Civil Code §3294 to punish the defendant and deter future misconduct. Cases filed in Los Angeles Superior Court against institutional defendants have resulted in multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements, reflecting the serious harm caused by institutional failures to protect students.

Filing a Title IX complaint with your university or with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights does not waive, limit, or bar your right to pursue a separate California civil lawsuit for monetary damages. Title IX (20 U.S.C. §1681) is a federal anti-discrimination statute that triggers an internal university investigation with a preponderance of evidence standard, while a California civil lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court seeks compensatory and punitive damages under state tort law. An attorney can pursue Title IX administrative relief and a civil lawsuit simultaneously, and evidence obtained through the university’s Title IX investigation may be used to strengthen the civil case.

Yes—California’s civil and criminal legal systems operate independently, and a prosecutor’s decision to decline charges, dismiss a case, or a jury’s acquittal does not bar a survivor from filing a civil lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. The burden of proof in a California civil case is ‘preponderance of the evidence’—meaning it is more likely than not that the abuse occurred—compared to the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard required in criminal proceedings. Many Los Angeles campus sexual abuse survivors have obtained civil judgments and settlements against both perpetrators and institutions even where no criminal conviction resulted.

California Code of Civil Procedure §367.3, enacted by AB 1510, permits sexual assault survivors to proceed using a pseudonym such as ‘Jane Doe’ or ‘John Doe’ in civil lawsuits, protecting their identity from public court records. Los Angeles Superior Court routinely grants motions to proceed anonymously in campus sexual abuse cases, and protective orders under California Rules of Court, Rule 2.550 can further restrict disclosure of sensitive documents during discovery. An attorney can file the appropriate motions at the outset of the case to ensure confidentiality protections are in place before any identifying information enters the public record.

Campus sexual abuse cases filed in Los Angeles Superior Court typically take between two and four years from filing to final resolution, depending on the complexity of the case, the number of defendants, and whether the matter resolves through settlement or proceeds to trial. Cases involving institutional defendants such as universities require extensive discovery, including depositions of administrators, review of Title IX investigation files, and analysis of internal communications about the abuser’s prior conduct. Many institutional defendants seek early settlement when liability evidence—particularly evidence of prior notice—is strong, and AB 2777’s revival window has created renewed settlement pressure on Los Angeles-area universities facing revived claims.

Yes—California law imposes heightened duties on educational institutions for individuals in positions of authority over students, and universities can be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior and directly liable under negligent supervision theories for abuse by professors, coaches, athletic trainers, and resident advisors. Education Code §44050 and related provisions establish specific obligations for California educational institutions to prevent and report sexual misconduct by employees. If a Los Angeles university knew or should have known of prior misconduct by the abuser—through complaints, investigations, or other red flags—and failed to act, the institution faces substantial civil liability under both California negligence law and AB 2777.

Yes—AB 2777 (CCP §340.16) applies to sexual assaults where an institution or organization with authority over the perpetrator knew or had reason to know of the unlawful sexual conduct, which can include national fraternity and sorority organizations, their local chapters, and the universities that formally recognize and oversee Greek life. California courts apply the Rowland factors to assess premises liability and duty of care for fraternity and sorority property, and both the Greek organization and the university maintaining oversight can face direct liability. The AB 2777 revival window allows survivors of fraternity or sorority sexual abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2009 to file claims against these institutions through December 31, 2026.

Strong evidence in Los Angeles campus sexual abuse cases includes medical and psychological treatment records documenting injuries, contemporaneous communications such as texts, emails, and social media messages, university Title IX investigation files and internal communications about the abuser, police reports, and witness statements from classmates, roommates, or other survivors. Under California Evidence Code §1108, prior sexual offense evidence is admissible in civil cases, making it highly valuable when a university ignored prior complaints against the same abuser. An attorney can subpoena university human resources files, Title IX records, and personnel records to establish what the institution knew and when, which is the foundation of institutional liability under AB 2777.

A university Title IX investigation is an internal administrative process governed by federal regulations at 34 C.F.R. Part 106, with outcomes limited to campus disciplinary measures such as suspension, expulsion, or no-contact orders—it cannot award monetary damages to survivors. A California civil lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court under CCP §340.16, California negligence law, and related statutes seeks compensatory and punitive damages from both the individual perpetrator and the institution, and is governed by the California Evidence Code, Code of Civil Procedure, and California Rules of Court. The two processes are legally independent, can run simultaneously, and a finding of insufficient evidence in the university’s Title IX process does not prevent a survivor from prevailing in a civil lawsuit where the evidentiary standard—preponderance of the evidence—is identical but the scope of discoverable evidence is far broader.