Roman Catholic Bishop v. Superior Court

Good Law
128 Cal. App. 4th 1155·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 683·2005 Daily Journal DAR 4941·28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 355·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3612
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 28, 2005B179053California6,905 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland, a corporation sole (Bishop), petitions for a writ of mandate to preclude plaintiff Bob Thatcher from seeking punitive damages in Thatcher’s suit against the Bishop for childhood sexual abuse by one of the Bishop’s priests. According to the Bishop, punitive damages in this case violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States and California Constitutions because they are sought only by virtue of a statute that revived the statute of limitations on otherwise barred tort claims for childhood sexual abuse. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.1.) We hold that the statute does not violate the ex post facto doctrine, and deny the request for extraordinary relief.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The statute of limitations for tort claims based on allegations of childhood sexual abuse is found at Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1. Although claims based on liability for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual abuse by others ordinarily have to be brought by the plaintiff’s 26th birthday, section 340.1 was amended in 2002 to permit a one-year period for the revival of such abuse claims that had expired under the previous limitations…

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.