Lent

Lent v. Doe

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1297·40 Cal. App. 4th 1177·47 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389·95 Daily Journal DAR 16237·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9344
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 5, 1995C018471California3,268 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

I

In his complaint, plaintiff Michael Lent alleges he was sexually abused by his uncle, defendant Doe, over a three-year period beginning when plaintiff was twelve. Plaintiff filed his action in January 1994 when he was 31 years old. Defendant demurred, arguing the complaint on its face disclosed the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court rejected plaintiff’s theory of delayed discovery, sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal. We shall reverse.

The period of limitations for an action based on childhood sexual abuse is set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1 (hereafter statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Code of Civil Procedure). It requires an action for childhood sexual abuse to be commenced “within eight years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within three years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual abuse, whichever period expires later.” (§ 340.1, subd. (a)) These time limits were first enacted in…

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.