Aaronoff

Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 4th 910·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 184·2006 Daily Journal DAR 1797·39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 137·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1310
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 2006C049246California4,580 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants James Senftner (James) and Gloria Martinez-Senftner (Gloria), the plaintiff’s parents, after they successfully demurred to a second amended complaint. The 40-year-old plaintiff sought damages from her parents for sexual abuse inflicted by her father when she was a child. The trial court found the claims barred by the statute of limitations, Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1.

Section 340.1, subdivisions (a) and (b) provide that a plaintiff must bring an action for damages caused by childhood sexual abuse before the age of 26 or within three years of the date of discovery, whichever is later. A 1997 action by the plaintiff against her parents was dismissed pursuant to these provisions. However, a recent amendment to section 340.1 permits a revival of the action, notwithstanding a prior termination on the basis of the statute of limitations, if commenced in 2003 against a third party who failed to take preventive action after notice of the unlawful sexual conduct “by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent” of the third party. (§ 340.1, subds. (b)(2) & (c), as amended by Stats. 2002, ch. 149, § 1.)

At…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.