SB 577 explained: what changed for childhood sexual abuse claims in California

If you were sexually abused as a child in California, you may have seen headlines about SB 577 and wondered whether you can still bring a case. For most survivors, you can. But SB 577 changes the rules for some, especially people 40 or older suing a public school district, county or other government body over abuse before 2024.

If reading about this brings up difficult feelings, support is available at any hour through the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800-656-HOPE (4673), or by calling or texting 988 for the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. This guide reflects the chaptered text as of October 31, 2026. It is general information, not advice about your case, and some of the law's effects will not be clear until courts apply it.

SB 577 at a glance

The bill was chaptered by the Secretary of State on September 30, 2026, and a law firm summary published October 6, 2026 reports that it becomes effective January 1, 2027. The Assembly passed it 49 to 20 on August 30, 2026, according to the Senate Rules Committee's September 16, 2026 floor analysis.

Why the Legislature passed SB 577

Earlier laws, AB 218 in 2019 and AB 452 in 2023, greatly expanded the time survivors have to sue. Public entities then faced large numbers of claims. An Assembly floor analysis notes that Los Angeles County agreed to a $4 billion settlement to resolve 6,800 sexual abuse claims. SB 577 is the compromise that followed. The analysis describes it as an effort to give public entities some financial security without closing the courthouse to survivors. CalMatters reported that the final bill did not include caps on damages.

Where the rules live now: § 340.1, § 340.11 and § 340.12

Since January 1, 2024, the deadlines have been split across two sections:

• Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1 covers abuse on or after January 1, 2024, where AB 452 removed the time limit.
• § 340.11 covers abuse before January 1, 2024. It was added by SB 558 (Stats. 2023, ch. 877) and carries forward the older rules: until age 40, or a period after discovery, whichever is later.

SB 577 amends both sections and adds a new one, § 340.12, with the higher proof standard. Pages that describe the pre-2024 rules as "§ 340.1" are describing what is now § 340.11.

Change 1: a higher standard for survivors 40 and older suing public entities

New § 340.12 applies when a survivor who is 40 or older files a case against a public entity on or after January 1, 2026, under the parts of § 340.11 that cover claims against people or organizations other than the abuser (negligence or an intentional act that was a legal cause of the abuse). Because § 340.11 governs abuse before 2024, this standard reaches older abuse only.

In those cases, the survivor must prove two things by "clear and convincing evidence," a higher standard than the usual "more likely than not":

1. "That the public entity knew of misconduct that resulted in childhood sexual assault" by an employee, volunteer, representative or agent, and failed "to take reasonable steps or to implement reasonable safeguards" to avoid acts of childhood sexual assault; and
2. "That the public entity negligently discharged a mandatory duty."

The standard does not apply if a judgment has been entered or the case is subject to a final settlement. Courts must also weigh listed factors, such as the entity's public mission and whether an award works like punitive damages, when asked to reduce a jury award, and a public entity may ask that damages be paid over time.

A note on how this was reported

Some news coverage before the bill was signed described the standard as requiring "actual knowledge" and as applying to cases "in which records were destroyed." In the chaptered text we reviewed, § 340.12 uses the words "knew of misconduct," and we did not find a separate destroyed-records rule.

Change 2: a shorter discovery period for abuse before 2024

Under the prior version of § 340.11, a survivor of pre-2024 abuse could sue until age 40, or within five years of discovering, or when they reasonably should have discovered, that a psychological injury or illness after age 18 was caused by the abuse, whichever was later. SB 577 changes "five years" to "three years." The age-40 rule is unchanged.

Because it is in § 340.11, this change also affects claims against private institutions and abusers.

What is uncertain: The analyses we reviewed do not say how the three-year period applies to survivors whose five-year period was already running, or who discovered the connection three to five years ago and have not yet filed. Section 340.1 also still says pre-2024 claims follow the statute of limitations "as it read on December 31, 2023," and courts may have to reconcile that sentence with the amended § 340.11. If you are relying on the discovery rule, ask a lawyer to review your dates now. Filing before January 1, 2027, when the law takes effect, may matter in some situations.

Change 3: no treble damages against public entities

When abuse resulted from a cover-up, California law allows up to three times the damages against the defendant that covered it up. SB 577 adds that this rule "shall not apply to a defendant that is a public entity." That matches the California Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Los Angeles Unified School District v. Superior Court, which held that these damages are punitive and barred against public entities. Treble damages remain possible against private institutions.

Change 4: certificates of merit filed with the complaint

Survivors who are 40 or older when they file already had to submit certificates of merit from their attorney and a licensed mental health practitioner. Under SB 577, the certificates must be filed together with the complaint, and the court clerk may not accept a complaint without them. The attorney must also state that they are licensed in California and in good standing with the State Bar. If a deadline is about to pass and the certificates cannot be obtained in time, the attorney can say so and file the certificates within 60 days after the complaint.

Change 5: penalties for claims brought in bad faith

An attorney found to have brought a childhood sexual assault claim in bad faith faces a civil penalty of $25,000 per violation, and each claim filed in bad faith is a separate violation. The Attorney General, a city attorney or county counsel can bring that action. A bad-faith finding cannot rest solely on delayed disclosure, missing public records or losing at trial.

Other parts of SB 577

• Shared fault. In cases filed on or after January 1, 2027 against a public entity, the entity is jointly liable for economic damages only if it is found more than 15% at fault. This applies broadly, not only to abuse cases.
• Prevention. Local governments and local educational agencies must adopt codes of conduct and sexual assault prevention plans, and the bill adds oversight for foster care and juvenile settings.

What SB 577 did not change

• No damages cap.
• No deadline for abuse on or after January 1, 2024. AB 452's rule in § 340.1 still applies.
• Private institutions. The higher standard in § 340.12 applies only to public entities.
• The government claim exemption. We did not find any change to Government Code § 905(m), which exempts childhood sexual assault claims from the six-month government claim requirement.
• Adult sexual assault deadlines. SB 577 does not change § 340.16, the AB 2777 window that closes December 31, 2026 or the AB 250 cover-up window that closes December 31, 2027.

Questions courts will likely have to answer

• Whether the higher standard can apply to cases filed in 2026, before the law was signed.
• How the three-year discovery period applies to claims that accrued under the five-year rule.
• What evidence shows a public entity "knew of misconduct," and which "mandatory duty" applies in a given case.

Examples (hypothetical, for illustration only)

A 34-year-old survivor of abuse by a public school employee in 2005. She is under 40, so § 340.12's higher standard does not apply. She can generally sue the school district without a government claim, within the age-40 rule.

A 52-year-old survivor of abuse in a county facility in the 1980s, filing in 2027. He would rely on the discovery rule, now three years, and must file certificates of merit with the complaint. Against the county, he would need clear and convincing evidence that it knew of misconduct and negligently discharged a mandatory duty.

What to do if you think SB 577 affects you

1. Note your key dates: your age now, roughly when the abuse happened and when you first connected it to harm as an adult.
2. Identify who was responsible: a public school, county, foster agency or juvenile facility, or a private organization.
3. Get a confidential review. Our sexual abuse deadline finder gives a rough first read, and a lawyer can check the details.

Filing as Jane Doe or John Doe may be possible; see our guide to filing a sexual abuse lawsuit as Jane Doe. For the full deadline rules, read our guide to the childhood sexual abuse statute of limitations in California, and for claims against schools, our school district sexual abuse lawsuit guide.

How LaCour helps

LaCour Trial Lawyers represents survivors of childhood abuse in schools, foster care, youth programs and other institutions across California, including cases against public entities. You set the pace, we have Spanish-speaking lawyers and staff, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery. We never pay anyone for a referral or a claim, and we will never ask anyone to change or exaggerate what happened. Learn more about our institutional sexual abuse practice or request a free, confidential review.

Frequently asked questions

This guide is general information about California and federal law and about public records as of its date. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney–client relationship. Allegations in lawsuits are claims, not findings. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney advertising.