## Facts

- John Doe and John Doe 2 alleged that, as minors in the 1970s, they participated in a joint Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Explorer Scout program.
- They alleged that LAPD officer David Kalish sexually abused them during their participation in the program.
- They sued the City of Los Angeles and BSA for negligence in hiring, supervision, retention, and failure to protect minors.
- The actions were filed when plaintiffs were in their 40s, well after the general time limit for childhood sexual abuse claims under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 (generally requiring filing by age 26).
- To invoke the extended limitations period for certain non-perpetrator defendants under § 340.1(b)(2), plaintiffs alleged defendants were on notice of a serious risk of abuse based on:
  - an allegedly “high-risk” program structure,
  - alleged sexual misconduct by other officers with program participants, and
  - Kalish’s alleged “inappropriate tendencies” (including apparent interest in certain boys, travel to Thailand, and association with a person known for pedophilia-related pornography).
- The trial court sustained demurrers and dismissed as time-barred; the Court of Appeal affirmed, applying what was characterized as a heightened pleading approach.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaints sufficiently alleged, under Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b)(2), that the City and BSA “knew or had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct” by Kalish and failed to take reasonable steps and safeguards, thus extending the limitations period.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal as time-barred.
- The Court held § 340.1(b)(2) is remedial and should be construed broadly; heightened pleading requirements are improper.
- The Court held the pleadings still failed to allege the statutorily required notice of “any unlawful sexual conduct” by Kalish.
- The Court disapproved the Court of Appeal’s reasoning to the extent it imposed heightened pleading standards, while leaving the result intact.

## Legal Principles

- Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1(b)(2) is remedial and is construed broadly to further the legislative purpose of expanding civil remedies for childhood sexual abuse victims.
- Broad construction does not remove the statutory elements: to obtain § 340.1(b)(2)’s extended period, a plaintiff must allege facts showing the defendant knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of “any unlawful sexual conduct” by the specific employee/agent at issue.
- Allegations showing only a generalized risk of abuse, a risky setting, or suspicious behavior—without notice of actual unlawful sexual conduct by that specific person—do not satisfy § 340.1(b)(2).

## Conclusion

The court held that, although § 340.1(b)(2) is interpreted as a remedial expansion and should not be burdened by heightened pleading rules, the statute still requires allegations that the defendant had notice of unlawful sexual conduct by the particular perpetrator; because the complaints alleged only generalized risk and suspicion rather than notice of Kalish’s unlawful conduct, the extended limitations period did not apply and the actions were untimely.


Doe v. City of Los Angeles, 42 Cal. 4th 531, 169 P.3d 559 (Cal. 2007)