Los Angeles Workplace Sexual Abuse Attorney

California’s AB 2777 opened a three-year revival window on January 1, 2023, allowing survivors to file sexual assault civil claims that were previously time-barred, with a hard deadline of December 31, 2026. This window applies regardless of when the assault occurred, meaning Sacramento survivors of Uber or Lyft driver assaults from years ago may still have an actionable claim if they file before that date. After December 31, 2026, this revival window permanently closes and previously time-barred claims will no longer be eligible.

Yes — under California negligence law, Uber and Lyft can be held liable for negligent hiring, negligent retention, and negligent supervision when their drivers commit sexual assault. Both companies have been the subject of mass tort litigation, and Uber’s own safety report disclosed over 3,000 sexual assaults across the U.S. in 2019-2020 alone, establishing their awareness of the systemic risk. Sacramento victims can bring claims in Sacramento County Superior Court at 720 9th Street, alleging the company failed to adequately screen or monitor its drivers.

California Code of Civil Procedure §340.1, as amended by AB 218 in 2019, gives adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse until age 40, or within five years of discovering psychological injury caused by the abuse, to file a civil lawsuit. If you were a minor when assaulted by a rideshare driver in Sacramento County, this extended statute of limitations may apply to your claim. The same legislation also created revival provisions allowing previously time-barred childhood abuse claims to be filed, which interact with the AB 2777 window for other adult survivor claims.

Civil lawsuits arising from rideshare sexual assaults in Sacramento County are filed in the Sacramento County Superior Court, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Depending on the damages sought, the case may proceed in the court’s Unlimited Civil division if damages exceed $35,000, which is typical in sexual assault cases. Federal court may also be an option if the parties are from different states, as many Uber and Lyft corporate entities are incorporated in Delaware with principal offices in San Francisco.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft under CPUC Decision D.13-09-045 and its subsequent amendments, requiring driver background checks, safety protocols, and insurance minimums. A violation of CPUC-mandated safety requirements can constitute negligence per se under California law, strengthening a civil claim by establishing that the rideshare company breached a legally imposed duty. CPUC records and TNC compliance filings are discoverable in Sacramento civil litigation and can help establish a pattern of inadequate driver oversight.

Under California Public Utilities Code §5433 and CPUC regulations, rideshare companies must maintain at least $1 million in commercial liability coverage per incident while a driver is transporting a passenger or en route to pick one up. This $1 million policy is separate from the driver’s personal insurance and applies from the moment a ride is accepted until the passenger exits the vehicle. If the assault occurred during an active ride or during the en-route period, this commercial coverage is the primary source of compensation, giving Sacramento victims access to substantially higher policy limits than a standard auto claim.

California Civil Code §1708.5 defines sexual battery as an intentional, harmful or offensive contact with an intimate part of another person committed without consent. In a civil rideshare case, a Sacramento plaintiff must prove the driver made such contact, that it was nonconsensual, and that it caused harm — a lower burden of proof than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Unlike a criminal prosecution handled by the Sacramento County District Attorney, the civil action under §1708.5 allows the survivor to recover compensatory and punitive damages directly from both the driver and the rideshare company.

Yes — a criminal complaint filed with the Sacramento Police Department or the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office and a civil lawsuit under California Civil Code §1708.5 are completely independent proceedings that can run simultaneously. A criminal conviction is not required to win a civil case, and in fact a civil case can proceed even if criminal charges are never filed or result in acquittal, because the civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence gathered during a criminal investigation, including law enforcement reports and recorded statements, may also be obtained through civil discovery to support your Sacramento civil claim.

Under California law, a rideshare sexual assault survivor in Sacramento can recover economic damages including medical expenses, therapy costs, lost wages, and future earning capacity, as well as non-economic damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life. Punitive damages are also available under California Civil Code §3294 when a defendant’s conduct is found to constitute oppression, fraud, or malice — a standard that courts have applied where rideshare companies ignored known assault risks. Given Uber and Lyft’s documented awareness of systemic driver assault patterns, punitive damages claims have succeeded in similar California cases, sometimes resulting in multimillion-dollar jury awards.

Yes — under California negligent hiring doctrine, Uber or Lyft can be held liable if their background screening failed to identify a driver’s prior criminal history, particularly sex offense convictions, that would have prevented the driver from being approved. CPUC rules require TNCs to conduct background checks through accredited agencies, and failure to comply with those requirements can establish negligence per se in Sacramento civil proceedings. Additionally, if a driver had prior assault complaints reported through the app and the company retained the driver anyway, that constitutes negligent retention — a separate theory of liability that has been successfully argued in California rideshare cases.

California courts and federal circuit courts have increasingly scrutinized rideshare arbitration clauses in sexual assault cases, and California Code of Civil Procedure §1281.98 provides that arbitration agreements are unenforceable if the company fails to pay required arbitration fees on time. Furthermore, the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA), effective March 3, 2022, allows survivors to invalidate pre-dispute arbitration agreements in sexual harassment and assault claims, giving Sacramento victims the right to litigate in Sacramento County Superior Court regardless of what the app’s terms of service state.

AB 2777, codified at California Code of Civil Procedure §340.16, created a revival window opening January 1, 2023 and closing December 31, 2026 for adult sexual assault claims that were barred solely by the statute of limitations. This means a Sacramento survivor assaulted by a rideshare driver in 2015, 2017, or any prior year may file a new civil lawsuit before December 31, 2026, even if the standard three-year limitations period under CCP §335.1 had already expired. The revival window applies to both the individual driver and the corporate rideshare entity, making it essential for Sacramento survivors with older claims to consult an attorney immediately given the approaching deadline.

Survivors should preserve all digital evidence including the ride receipt, the driver’s name and photo from the app, GPS trip data, and any in-app communications, as this data can be deleted or overwritten without a litigation hold demand sent to Uber or Lyft. A sexual assault forensic exam (SAFE exam) conducted at UC Davis Medical Center or another Sacramento County-approved facility can collect physical evidence that may be critical to both criminal and civil proceedings. Screenshots of the driver’s profile, any post-ride communications, and records of reports made to Uber or Lyft’s support system should also be saved immediately, as these documents establish notice to the company and are vital to proving a negligence claim.

California’s insurance regulations create three distinct coverage periods for TNC drivers: Period 1 (app on, no ride accepted) requires minimum $50,000 per person in liability coverage; Period 2 (ride accepted, en route to passenger) and Period 3 (passenger in vehicle) require $1 million in coverage under CPUC regulations. If a Sacramento assault occurred during Period 1, the available insurance coverage is lower, but a civil negligence claim against Uber or Lyft can still be pursued based on negligent hiring and supervision theories that are not limited by insurance period. An attorney experienced in California TNC law can analyze the driver’s app status at the time of the incident using records obtained through discovery from Uber or Lyft’s internal systems.

Yes — California AB 1182 (2021) required Uber and Lyft to submit annual safety reports to the CPUC disclosing the number and categories of sexual assault incidents reported on their platforms, and CPUC General Order 157-E imposes ongoing data reporting obligations. Failure to accurately report Sacramento-area incidents or to maintain records as required by CPUC regulations can expose the companies to regulatory sanctions and can be used as evidence of concealment in a civil lawsuit. Additionally, under California Penal Code §11166, certain licensed professionals who learn of sexual assaults against minors through rideshare incidents are mandated reporters, and a Sacramento survivor may request CPUC safety reports through public records requests to support their civil case.