
A California Court of Appeal issued an opinion confirming that the 1986 Proposition 51 cap on noneconomic damages remains in force for childhood sexual‑abuse claims that were revived by a 2019 law. The decision involves more than 1,000 plaintiffs suing several Roman Catholic dioceses, parishes, schools and the Boy Scouts of America in a consolidated Alameda County case.
The plaintiffs argued that Proposition 51, which limits pain‑and‑suffering awards to a percentage of a defendant’s fault, should not apply because their abuse occurred before the measure’s adoption. The court rejected that argument, finding that the claims, although based on older abuse, were legally revived in 2020 and therefore accrued under the 1986 framework.
Source: Courthouse News Service
The 2019 legislation reset the filing clock for childhood sexual‑abuse cases to 2020 and extended the window to five years after a victim discovers a psychological injury. That change opened the door for many new lawsuits, including the massive coordinated action against the Catholic Church.
Survivors who file claims under the 2019 law will still face the noneconomic damage caps imposed by Proposition 51. While the law gives them a fresh opportunity to bring forward claims that were previously time‑barred, the potential compensation for pain and suffering is limited by the 1986 percentage rule. No new filing deadline was set in the opinion beyond the five‑year window after injury discovery.
The first bellwether trial in the coordinated action resulted in a $16 million jury award against the Diocese of Oakland. A second bellwether trial involving the Santa Rosa Diocese was transferred to Sonoma County Superior Court. Several dioceses have filed for bankruptcy, which could pause or reduce payouts.
Anyone who believes they may have a claim should review the 2019 statute‑of‑limitations reset and consider consulting an attorney to assess eligibility and potential damages under the existing caps.
Survivors can file new lawsuits, but compensation for pain and suffering remains limited by the 1986 caps.
The 2019 law gives victims a fresh five‑year period to bring claims after discovering psychological harm.
Dioceses filing for bankruptcy could delay or reduce the amount survivors ultimately receive.
The California Supreme Court’s request for explanation may lead to additional clarification on damage limits.
If you think you were abused as a child, a lawyer can help determine if you meet the new filing window and explain the damage‑cap impact.
This article is general information based on Courthouse News Service and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 6, 2026.
Source: Courthouse News Service
Attorney General Rob Bonta assures Californians that vote‑by‑mail remains secure for the Nov. 3, 2026 election after a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
A federal judge in California has blocked enforcement of a $100,000 H-1B visa fee, ordering proper rulemaking by the Department of Homeland Security.
A federal judge ruled that content creators can move forward with a lawsuit accusing ByteDance of data mining their YouTube videos to train artificial intelligence models.
California AG Bonta announced an agreement with Natomas Unified over student privacy violations, discriminatory discipline, and unlawful suspensions.
California's Attorney General has served an investigative subpoena on OpenAI as part of a formal inquiry into cybersecurity risks and incidents.
Reading about the law is one thing, applying it to your own case is another. Browse verified attorneys in California by practice area.