Victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault are bringing civil lawsuits in California and getting significant settlements. Thanks to new changes in California law, it is now much easier for sex abuse victims to access the civil courts.

In this post, we will examine the process and laws related to sex abuse lawsuits in California. We will also examine the average settlement amounts of these cases and provide examples of settlements and jury payouts.

If you have a sex abuse case in California, contact us today.

California Sex Abuse Updates

April 2, 2025: George Forman Sex Abuse Lawsuit

Following the death of George Foreman, two women who filed sexual assault lawsuits against him in California federal court have requested a 90-day pause in proceedings to allow time for appointing a legal representative for Foreman’s estate.

The lawsuits, originally filed in December 2022, allege that Foreman sexually abused both women when they were teenagers. One of the cases had recently survived a motion for partial summary judgment, with a federal judge ruling that the allegations described an “ongoing pattern” of abuse and that California law should apply. The court rejected Foreman’s argument that certain claims should be dismissed due to expired statutes of limitations in other states.

March 13, 2025: Montenbello School District Sex Abuse Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, a California woman alleges that Montebello Unified School District failed to protect her from years of sexual abuse by her high school math teacher. The lawsuit claims that from 2000 to 2004, while attending Montebello High School, the plaintiff was groomed and sexually abused by her teacher, who gave her special attention, offered her rides to school, and isolated her in his classroom. The abuse allegedly escalated to inappropriate touching and coerced sexual acts, both on and off school grounds.

According to the complaint, her teacher began grooming her when she transferred into his math class during her freshman year. He immediately singled her out for special attention, flirted with her, and offered her rides to school in his personal car, picking her up at the bus stop. Over time, the teacher escalated his behavior, isolating her in his classroom during recess and lunch breaks, where he would close the door and ensure no other students were present.

As the grooming continued, the teacher began holding hands with the plaintiff while driving her to school, putting his hand on her thigh, and engaging in inappropriate physical contact. He later started fondling her breasts, kissing her, placing his hands inside her pants, and having her touch his erect penis over his clothing. Much of this abuse took place inside his car, his classroom, and the school’s copy room, where he would press his body against hers and grope her. During her sophomore year, the teacher gave her a cell phone so he could communicate with her privately, sending flirtatious messages and engaging in phone sex. The abuse continued throughout her high school years.

This is awful, but how is the school responsible? Multiple school employees allegedly witnessed suspicious behavior throughout this period but failed to report it. Staff members saw the young student exiting the teacher’s personal vehicle in the staff parking lot, but no one took action. The story gets worse. The defendant’s own brother was also a teacher at Montebello High School. He allegedly observed his brother’s interactions with the plaintiff multiple times and did nothing to intervene. Years after graduating, the plaintiff came forward and reported the abuse to law enforcement. The man was arrested and criminally charged, but before he could stand trial, he committed suicide.

Why the school district would not settle this lawsuit before it was filed is a mystery.

March 7, 2025: New School Sex Abuse Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a developmentally disabled woman from El Dorado County is suing the El Dorado County Office of Education (EDCOE), alleging the agency’s negligence allowed a school van driver to sexually assault her. The plaintiff, who has the cognitive abilities of a 10- to 12-year-old child, was routinely transported home alone in an EDCOE van, often the last student on the route. Despite knowing the risks, EDCOE failed to install surveillance cameras or GPS tracking measures it had acknowledged years earlier as critical for student safety.

The lawsuit claims that in November 2022, an EDCOE driver took advantage of that lack of oversight, sexually assaulting the victim while alone with her in the van. A 2024 El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury report later confirmed that EDCOE’s failure to monitor student transportation left students vulnerable to sexual abuse.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for violations of her constitutional and statutory rights, arguing that EDCOE’s deliberate indifference put her directly in harm’s way.

March 6, 2025: Class Action Lawsuit Denied (maybe for the best)

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler recently denied the motion to certify a sex abuse class action lawsuit alleging a sexually abusive environment under former University of San Francisco (USF) baseball coaches. The proposed class, which included all USF baseball players since 2000, was deemed too broad and lacking in commonality required for class certification.

There are some upsides. This ruling allows individual plaintiffs to pursue their claims without the constraints of a class action framework. This enables a more tailored examination of each plaintiff’s unique experiences. By focusing on individual school sex abuse lawsuits, the court can address the particular circumstances of each claim, ensuring that the nuances of each plaintiff’s situation are thoroughly considered. This individualized attention may result in more appropriate remedies and a clearer path to settlement compensations for victims.

March 4, 2o25: New Detention Center Lawsuit

California’s attorney general has unsealed an indictment charging 30 detention officers at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall with child abuse, alleging that they facilitated and encouraged brutal “gladiator fights” among detained youth. The indictment details at least 69 organized fights involving 143 children between 12 and 18 years old in the latter half of 2023, some resulting in serious injury. Prosecutors claim officers stood by as these violent encounters unfolded, treating them more like referees than caretakers. The charges include felony child abuse, with some officers also facing conspiracy and battery charges.

The indictment of 30 detention officers at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall for orchestrating “gladiator fights” is not just a story about brutality—it is a chilling example of how systemic failures create the perfect breeding ground for sexual abuse in juvenile detention centers. When guards treat children as entertainment, allowing them to be beaten for sport, it is not a leap to understand how those same power structures enable sexual predators to thrive behind bars. Abuse—whether physical or sexual—flourishes in environments where authority figures act without fear of consequences, where staff view detainees as subhuman, and where institutional neglect becomes the status quo.

Once an institution normalizes violence and dehumanization, it sends a loud message to sexual predators within its ranks: there are no barriers to committing even greater atrocities. It is one big green light. It is part of a larger pattern of juvenile detention center sexual abuse, where unchecked power breeds corruption, cruelty, and exploitation. Until these institutions are forced to take real accountability, these facilities will continue to be a predator’s playground, with the most vulnerable children suffering the consequences.

March 1, 2025: Prison OB/GYN Charged and Sued For Abusing Patients

For seven years, Dr. Scott Lee, the only full-time gynecologist at the California Institution for Women in Chino, allegedly abused incarcerated women under his care.

A newly filed civil lawsuit by six former prisoners accuses Lee of coercing patients into unnecessary and painful examinations while prison officials ignored red flags and prior complaints. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has faced repeated allegations of systemic sexual abuse in its women’s prisons. This case comes amid a federal investigation into civil rights violations at both the Chino facility and another prison in Chowchilla that we have been talking about on this page.

The lawsuit details disturbing allegations, including forced pelvic exams, coercive medical procedures, and retaliation against women who resisted Lee’s authority. One plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe #1, recounted how Lee performed a painful and unnecessary pelvic exam despite her signed refusal. Another woman, Jane Doe #4, was seven months pregnant when she says Lee forcefully examined her despite her protests, leaving her terrified for her unborn child. The lawsuit further alleges, depressingly, that Lee’s behavior was known to medical staff, yet nurses present during these incidents failed to intervene, allowing the abuse to continue unchecked.

The case against Dr. Lee is clearly part of a broader pattern of sexual violence in California’s prisons, with imprisoned women struggling to report abuse due to fear of retaliation and systemic inaction. This cannot go on any longer in 2025.

February 23, 2025: Temescal Canyon High School Sex Abuse Allegations

We are investigating allegations of sexual abuse at Temescal Canyon High School in California. The allegations, which span multiple incidents, including a conviction, have raised concerns about the school’s handling of abuse claims and whether proper safeguards were in place to protect students. Law enforcement and sex abuse lawyers like us are working to determine the extent of the abuse, with investigators urging any victims or witnesses to come forward.

Get More California Sex Abuse Lawsuit Updates

January 7, 2025: Holiday Inn Los Angeles Facing Sex Trafficking Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed in federal court in Los Angeles last week, a survivor identified as Jane Doe accuses Holiday Inn franchise operators and parent company IHG of knowingly facilitating her trafficking and profiting from the exploitation. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was trafficked at multiple Holiday Inn locations, where obvious signs of trafficking were ignored by staff and management.

The complaint details red flags observed at the hotels, including cash payments for extended stays, multiple rooms rented simultaneously, constant male visitors at irregular hours, and traffickers lingering on the premises. Housekeeping staff were reportedly kept out of the rooms, with towels and linens exchanged at the door, further indicating illicit activity. Despite these indicators, the defendants allegedly failed to take action or alert law enforcement.

The plaintiff claims the defendants had actual and constructive knowledge of trafficking activities but failed to implement or enforce policies designed to detect and prevent such crimes. The lawsuit accuses the defendants of negligence in hiring, training, and supervising employees, creating an environment where traffickers could operate with impunity.

The plaintiff seeks damages for the harm caused by the trafficking, alleging that the defendants prioritized revenue over their duty to protect guests and prevent criminal activity. This case is part of a broader effort to hold the hospitality industry accountable for its role in addressing human trafficking.

January 6, 2025: Bell Middle School in San Diego

Our law firm is investigating sexual abuse claims involving Bell Middle School in San Diego.

January 2, 2025: $116 Million Settlement for Sex Abuse at Women’s Federal Prison

The federal government has agreed to pay $116 million in settlement compensation to a group of women who alleged that they were sexually abused at a women’s federal prison in Dublin, California. The facility, which has since been shut down, was known as the “rape club” because of its reputation for staff sexual assaults on female inmates.

January 1, 2025, 2024: Dr. Robert Altman Sex Abuse Claims Investigation

Our law firm is investigating sex abuse claims against Dr. Robert Altman. The California Medical Board has accused the prominent Modesto obstetrician-gynecologist of sexual misconduct following complaints from two patients. The accusations allege that Altman’s behavior included inappropriate touching during medical examinations, excessive physical contact, and failure to provide chaperones during sensitive procedures. Altman, who serves as president and CEO of Gould Medical Group.

The claims against Altman include incidents where he allegedly touched a patient’s clitoris during an exam, hugged patients inappropriately, and conducted extended vaginal examinations despite being asked to stop. A 2017 case involving one patient described Altman continuing an intrusive exam after repeated requests to stop, violating professional boundaries and neglecting to provide a chaperone. Another patient reported feeling uncomfortable after receiving a “husband-like hug” following an examination.

Altman’s alleged misconduct extends to his interactions with patients over several years, despite prior complaints and a lack of apparent corrective action by his employers. An investigation by the Medical Board concluded that Altman’s behavior amounted to sexual misconduct and gross negligence, warranting disciplinary action under the Medical Practice Act. Altman has the right to contest the allegations in a hearing, but disciplinary measures, such as probation, are common in cases where accusations are substantiated.

December 13, 2024: Paula Abdul Sexual Assault Settlement

Paula Abdul has settled her lawsuit against Nigel Lythgoe, a television producer behind American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance, where she alleged misconduct during her time as a judge on those shows.

Abdul filed the lawsuit in late 2023 in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming inappropriate behavior occurred during her work on the reality competition programs. Specifically, she claimed he grabbed her genitals and breasts, forcibly kissing her in a hotel elevator. The settlement terms were not disclosed, but Abdul expressed gratitude that the matter is now resolved, calling it a “long and hard-fought personal battle” and hoping her experience could encourage others facing similar struggles.

The case had been scheduled to go to trial in August 2025. Separate sexual assault claims brought against Lythgoe by other individuals remain pending in Los Angeles court.

December 11, 2024: Oakland Clergy Abuse Settlement Talks

The Diocese of Oakland has proposed a $117 million trust to settle roughly 350 clergy sexual abuse lawsuits as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The trust, partially funded by the title transfer of a Livermore property and gradual payments over several years, aims to resolve claims stemming from decades of alleged abuse.

Victims’ attorneys have criticized the proposal as woefully insufficient and accuse the diocese of minimizing its assets to reduce payouts, contrasting the offer with a recent $880 million settlement by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

Survivors and their attorneys argue with good reason that the plan delays compensation, diminishes its value due to inflation, and shields diocesan assets, calling for more transparency and the sale of additional properties. While the diocese defends the proposal as “just and equitable.” Is that the goal? Or is it a strategic move to protect the church’s financial interests at the expense of survivors?

November 20, 2024: Heman G. Stark Detention Center

The Heman G. Stark Juvenile Correctional Youth Facility in Chino, San Bernardino County, was once considered one of the most violent juvenile institutions in California—and the nation. After years of ongoing violence and abuse, the facility was permanently shut down.

There are a lot of sex abuse claims coming out of this facility. If you have a potential claim, call us.

November 7, 2024: More Detention Center Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Every single day in California we see new juvenile hall sex abuse lawsuits being filed. In a lawsuit filed this week in Los Angeles, a former detainee at Central Juvenile Hall, identified as “John Doe H.F.,” is seeking damages for childhood sexual abuse allegedly suffered while in the custody of the Los Angeles County-run juvenile detention facility.

According to the complaint, John Doe H.F. alleges that during his time as a minor in Central Juvenile Hall, he experienced numerous incidents of sexual assault, some of which were reportedly encouraged or witnessed by facility staff. The lawsuit claims that officials at the juvenile hall not only failed to intervene but also ignored prior reports of abuse, thereby allowing a dangerous environment to persist. It further asserts that the defendants neglected to adequately screen, supervise, or train staff, failing to protect minors from known risks of harm.

There are many possible detention center sex abuse defendants. But these are the ones our sex abuse lawyers have been focusing on:

Here are some of the most notable centers involved in such litigation:

San Diego County Juvenile Hall: San Diego County’s Juvenile Hall has also been named in several lawsuits involving allegations of sexual misconduct by both staff members and other detainees. The lawsuits commonly assert that facility staff either overlooked signs of sexual abuse or did not have adequate protocols in place to prevent it.
Santa Clara County Juvenile Hall: This facility has faced a series of lawsuits involving claims of physical and sexual abuse. Allegations have included inappropriate conduct by staff members and incidents between detainees. Plaintiffs in these cases often argue that the county failed to protect minors from foreseeable harm.
Orange County Juvenile Hall: Located in Orange County, this facility has had several high-profile lawsuits in recent years involving claims of sexual abuse and misconduct by detention officers. Some cases have claimed that county officials ignored prior complaints, allowing abusive environments to persist.

November 4, 2024: Dr. Barry J. Brock Sex Abuse Lawsuits

Our legal team is actively investigating allegations of sexual exploitation and misconduct against OB/GYN Barry J. Brock, M.D. Numerous former patients have come forward, citing incidents of inappropriate conduct during examinations, unnecessary and invasive procedures, and medical negligence that allegedly resulted in serious harm. These claims, involving conduct spanning several decades, raise critical issues regarding patient safety and institutional oversight.

If you or someone you know experienced misconduct or harm in association with Dr. Brock, please contact us for a confidential consultation to discuss your legal options.

October 17, 2024: L.A. Archdiocese to Pay $1.5 Billion In Settlement

The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles announced yesterday that it has finalized a settlement agreement to pay $880 million in compensation to approximately 1,300 victims who allege sexual abuse by priests. Previously, the L.A. Archdiocese had paid $740 million to an earlier group of victims. With these combined settlements, the total payout for sexual abuse claims against the L.A. Archdiocese now stands at $1.5 billion.

October 16, 2024: New Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall Sex Abuse Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed yesterday, a man alleges that while he was a minor detainee at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, California, he was subjected to childhood sexual assault, abuse, harassment, and molestation by other detainees and staff.

The complaint is short on specifics but is clear in its allegations that staff members not only failed to prevent the sexual molestation as it was happening but it also failed to properly screen, hire, monitor and train its people. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants knew or should have known about ongoing abuse at the facility. But it failed to take any real effort to protect the children in their custody. To this point, the lawsuit this negligence allowed sexual predators to continue working in the facility and harm minors, including the plaintiff.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of negligence, breach of mandatory duties, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff seeks damages for physical, psychological, and emotional injuries, as well as punitive damages.

October 15, 2024: $1.85 Million Influencer Lawsuit Settlement

A $1.85 million settlement has been reached in a child abuse lawsuit filed in California against the mother of YouTube star Piper Rockelle.

The lawsuit by 11 former members of the “Piper Squad” alleged emotional, verbal, and sexual abuse. According to the lawsuit that led to this settlement, the mother made “offensive and sexually explicit comments” at the minors, encouraged the minors to be sexual with each other, and touched them inappropriately.

A darker underbelly of the influencer world emerges in cases like this, where minors are drawn into environments that blur the lines between work, play, and exploitation. You wonder how this woman has $1.85 million to settle a lawsuit like this. A new California laws require earnings of child influencers to be placed in trust funds accessible when they turn 18. Other states need to follow suit.

October 3, 2024: Failure to Supervise Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County, the family of a young girl identified as Jane Doe ML has filed a complaint against the Los Angeles Unified School District, alleging the district failed to protect her from repeated sexual assaults by a fellow student. The incidents allegedly occurred between October 2023 and April 2024 while the child was enrolled in a transitional kindergarten class.

October 1, 2024: Chowchilla Women’s Prison

Our lawyers are looking into sexual abuse and assault lawsuits at Chowchilla Women’s Prison.

These Chowchilla lawsuits focus on some pretty awful allegations: systemic sexual misconduct by prison staff, inadequate oversight, and failures by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to protect incarcerated women from abuse. Our law firm has been getting calls from former inmates who have reported ongoing sexual harassment, assault, and retaliation when they attempted to report misconduct.

September 20, 2024: LAUSD Pays $24 Million for Teacher Sex Abuse

The Los Angeles Unified School District agreed to pay $24 million to settle claims brought by three women who alleged that they were sexually abused by their elementary school teacher back in 2006-2007. The woman alleged that while they were 8 and 9-year-old students at Langdon Avenue Elementary School in North Hills, their teacher, David Ostovich, sexually abused them. Ostivich had previously worked at another LAUSD school where he received numerous complaints about inappropriate behavior with female students, but nothing was ever done.

September 10, 2024: $3.6 Million Settlement for Prisoner’s Wife

A woman who was subjected to multiple invasive searches while attempting to visit her husband at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi received a settlement of $3.6 million. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paid most of the settlement, with additional contributions from a doctor, two correctional officers, and Adventist Health Tehachapi Valley Hospital.

Despite a search warrant that expressly prohibited a cavity search without X-ray confirmation of contraband, the woman was forcibly penetrated by a doctor during the search. No contraband was found on her person, and she was ultimately denied the visit. She also endured being handcuffed, denied bathroom access, and was not provided with water throughout the ordeal.

September 5, 2024: New School Sex Abuse Lawsuit

In a new school sex abuse lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed, molested, and abused by an employee and coach at Santa Ana High School, which is part of the Santa Ana Unified School District.

The complaint claims that the school district and its employees failed to supervise the teacher adequately, failed to implement proper safeguards against sexual abuse, and ignored signs of his inappropriate behavior, thereby allowing the abuse to occur. The suit highlights the school district’s direct and vicarious liability for the negligence of its employees in hiring, supervising, and retaining the teacher, and for not intervening despite the foreseeability of such misconduct.

More specifically, the plaintiff details multiple instances where the teacher allegedly engaged in inappropriate and abusive actions, including touching, grooming behaviors, and other acts of sexual misconduct, all facilitated by his position of authority and trust at the school.

The plaintiff seeks damages for the emotional and psychological harm suffered, citing violations of statutory duties intended to protect students from sexual abuse and arguing that the school district was on “inquiry notice” of the risks posed by this teacher. The complaint also seeks punitive damages against the man and the school district for their alleged willful disregard for the plaintiff’s safety and well-being that led to the sexual harassment, molestation, and abuse she endured.

August 19, 2024: New Juvenile Detention Center Lawsuit

A new sex abuse lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California by the plaintiff involves serious allegations of systemic failure and misconduct at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall.

The plaintiff, formerly detained at this facility during juvenile hall proceedings, asserts that they were subjected to repeated acts of sexual assault, abuse, and molestation by fellow detainees. These grievous acts were allegedly either overlooked or tacitly permitted by facility staff, including supervisors and other employees.

Central to the plaintiff’s allegations is the accusation that the defendants grossly neglected their legal and ethical responsibilities to protect minor detainees. Detailed claims allege a fundamental failure in screening and hiring practices, with insufficient background checks that might have precluded hiring individuals who are sexual predators. The plaintiff contends that the lack of proper training and supervision enabled a culture where sexual abuse could occur unchecked, exacerbating the risks to vulnerable minors.

Moreover, the complaint outlines a breach of mandatory statutory and ethical duties, asserting that the defendants did not adhere to regulations requiring the reporting and prevention of abuse. This neglect purportedly extended to a failure to investigate known incidents of abuse effectively or to discipline staff involved, thereby perpetuating an unsafe environment.

August 5, 2024 – Insurance Coverage for Los Angeles District

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has filed a lawsuit against several Chubb units, including Aetna Insurance Co., in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The suit arises from Chubb’s denial of coverage for 61 sexual abuse claims against the district. These claims are part of over 175 lawsuits alleging incidents dating back to the 1950s, which LAUSD argues should be covered under the liability policies issued during that time. The policies in question include five primary and seven excess policies, offering substantial indemnity and defense limits. LAUSD has been compelled to hire defense counsel due to Chubb’s refusal to defend the district in these cases.

Victims want LAUSD to win because insurance coverage makes sex abuse claims much easier to settle.

August 1, 2024 – New Dublin Lawsuit

In a new lawsuit, a woman alleges severe sexual harassment and abuse while incarcerated at FCI Dublin, a federal prison. The complaint, filed on March 29, 2024, accuses several correctional officers and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) of engaging in and enabling the abuse. The lawsuit cites multiple legal grounds, including violations of the Eighth Amendment, California Civil Code, and specific federal regulations.

Plaintiff’s lawsuit says that between 2019 and 2022, she was subjected to sexual manipulation and assault by an officer who coerced her into a sexual relationship with promises and threats. The situation escalated when the officer forcibly raped her. Disgustingly, she says other officers were complicit in the abuse by acting as lookouts. Just horrible.

The complaint outlines a broader culture of abuse at FCI Dublin, highlighting that several staff members, including the former warden, were indicted or convicted for similar offenses. The warden who led the prison and was involved in training staff on the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), was himself convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse against inmates. Other officers at the facility have also faced criminal charges for sexually assaulting female inmates, underscoring a systemic problem within the institution.

July 29, 2024 – Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall Lawsuit Update

Yet another civil lawsuit was filed last week involving allegations of child sexual abuse in California juvenile detention centers. The latest lawsuit includes two more plaintiffs claiming that they were sexually assaulted by staff members while they were inmates at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall. One female plaintiff is alleging that she was at Los Padrinos for 2 months in 2011, when she was 15 years old. During that time, she was singled out by one of the guards who sexually abused her regularly.

Another plaintiff asserts that in 2005 he was a 13-year-old inmate at Los Padrinos when an employee at the facility entered his cell at night, held him face down, and raped him. The lawsuit explains that he screamed in pain for at least 5 minutes during the assault and nobody came to check on him or help.

July 17, 2024 – Sex Trafficking Lawsuit Against MindGeek

A major new sexual abuse and trafficking lawsuit has been filed in California against the Canadian internet porn company MindGeek, now known as Aylo. MindGeek dominates the internet pornography market and owns popular platforms such as Pornhub, YouPorn, and RedTube.

These platforms host user-submitted pornographic content, which is then shared widely. The lawsuit alleges that MindGeek’s policies violated various state and federal laws by failing to screen out “child pornography” and by using an algorithm that allowed users to easily find illegal content featuring underage and non-consensual participants.

Additionally, the lawsuit targets the companies that financed MindGeek’s platform development.

July 14, 2024 – New Detention Center Lawsuit

In a new Los Angeles detention center sex abuse lawsuit, a plaintiff claims that he was abused at Central Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles, CA, where he experienced various acts of childhood sexual assault, abuse, harassment, and molestation.

These acts involved other minors and were witnessed or encouraged by unidentified staff members, including supervisors, teachers, counselors, nurses, physicians, detention officers, custodians, and other staff.

The complaint asserts that the defendants failed to properly screen, hire, train, and supervise the employees and individuals working at the juvenile hall, resulting in a lack of protection for the minors in their care.

Despite reports and evidence of misconduct, the defendants did not take appropriate action to stop the abuse, thereby allowing it to continue.

The plaintiff is seeking damages for the physical, emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries suffered due to the defendants’ negligence and breach of duty.

June 29, 2024 – $900 Million Verdict in Rape Civil Suit

This week, a Los Angeles jury awarded nearly $1 billion in damages for workplace sexual assault to a plaintiff against billionaire Alkiviades David.

The plaintiff, a former employee hired as a “brand ambassador” at one of David’s companies, filed suit in 2020 alleging years of sexual assault, battery, and harassment. Her lawsuit against alleged she was harassed and raped over three years from 2016 to 2019.

The jury awarded $100 million in compensatory damages and $800 million in punitive damages, marking one of the largest verdicts in a sexual assault case in history.

June 19, 2024 – Diocese of San Diego Plans to File Bankruptcy

The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego announced plans to file for bankruptcy due to hundreds of legal claims from alleged sexual abuse victims.

Cardinal Robert McElroy stated that bankruptcy would enable the Diocese to compensate victims while continuing its mission. Last year, McElroy warned of potential bankruptcy, citing the need to address lawsuits dating back to 1945.

The Diocese previously settled 144 claims for $198 million in 2007, but over 450 new claims would exceed $550 million. Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy will allow the Diocese’s parishes, charities, and schools to remain operational, although they must contribute to settlements. Plaintiffs’ lawyers criticized the Diocese’s bankruptcy move as a strategy to minimize compensation and avoid trials. They accused the Diocese of transferring assets to avoid settlements. The firm plans to work towards a fair settlement for the 457 survivors now involved in bankruptcy proceedings.

May 30, 2024 – Workplace Sex Assault Lawsuit

In a new workplace sexual assault lawsuit filed yesterday in Los Angeles, a then seventeen-year-old woman alleges she was sexually assaulted while working at Pizza Hut.

The complaint details specific incidents involving a coworker who unhooked the plaintiff’s bra on two separate occasions while she was working. The plaintiff claims Pizza Hut’s management knew what had happened and did nothing.

May 28, 2024 – New School Sex Abuse Settlement

Barstow Unified School District has agreed to a $2.38 million settlement in a child sex abuse lawsuit involving a former teacher, coach, and administrator, Mark L. Hassell.

This case is part of a larger pattern of alleged sexual misconduct within the district. This particular molestation lawsuit involved a student abused from 2004 to 2005 while she was 16 and 17 years old.

The lawsuit highlighted systemic issues within Barstow Unified, citing multiple instances where district employees, including high-ranking officials, were aware of Hassell’s misconduct but failed to report it to authorities, violating California’s mandated reporter law. The suit also pointed out that the district had a shameful history of ignoring sexual abuse allegations, with at least 14 alleged sexual predators reported within the district from 2004 to the present.

So this case is hardly an isolated incident for Barstow Unified. In 2021, the district paid $2.4 million to settle another lawsuit involving former teacher Katherine O’Neill. The plaintiff’s attorneys argue that the district’s failure to act on reports of abuse and lack of proper training for employees contributed to the ongoing problem.

The problems are not over for this district. It faces seven additional sex abuse lawsuits involving 25 reported victims over the last forty years.

More details are included in the settlement section below.

May 24, 2024: Mark Berndt Lawsuit

Another lawsuit was filed yesterday against the Los Angeles Unified School District alleging sexual abuse by Mark Berndt, a former teacher at Miramonte Elementary School. The district had notice in the 80s of what was happening yet he continued to teach children until 2011. Millions of dollars have already been spent on the Berndt settlement by the District.

The plaintiff in this case was 8. Berndt is now in jail.

May 22, 2024: Diocese of Oakland Seeks Bankruptcy Deadline Extension

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland has requested the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California to extend the deadlines for filing and obtaining acceptance of a reorganization plan to September 6 and November 5, 2024.

The request is due to the case’s size and complexity, involving over 570 creditors and 560 claims, including 386 related to childhood sexual abuse, many of which have substantial or unknown amounts.

Their motion explains that the unique aspects of handling claims related to childhood sexual abuse, such as confidentiality and equitable treatment, and the challenges of determining clergy sex abuse settlement amounts, add complexity. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on May 8, 2023, with disclosed assets and liabilities between $100 million and $500 million.

May 16, 2024: Owner of NY Knicks Seeks Dismissal of Sex Abuse Lawsuit

A massage therapist urged a California federal court to reject Knick’s owner, James Dolan, and his band’s motion to dismiss her sex abuse lawsuit.

The therapist’s lawsuit details how Dolan initiated unwanted sexual advances and manipulated her into compliance by leveraging his influence, deceiving her about her role on the tour, which was actually to fulfill his sexual demands. She also accuses Dolan of facilitating Weinstein’s assault by arranging a meeting under the guise of professional opportunities. She argues that Dolan’s intent and actions demonstrate coercion and fraud, fitting the criteria for sex trafficking and other allegations, and that her lawsuit should proceed.

April 23, 2024: Diocese of Sacramento Files Bankruptcy

As expected, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sacramento submitted a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in a California court to manage liabilities stemming from historical childhood sexual abuse claims, potentially amounting to as much as $500 million. The filing was made to prevent the depletion of the debtor’s assets by the numerous claims. The church says this necessitated the protection of the bankruptcy court to reorganize and address the financial implications of these allegations.

Bankruptcy in sex abuse lawsuits are not the best-case scenario. But it is not all bad. In other jurisdictions, it has been a mixed bag. Bankruptcy often comes with lower but faster settlement amounts.

April 1, 2024: Massage Envy Settlement

A notice of settlement was filed in a Massage Envy sexual assault lawsuit in L.A. County. The plaintiff, who visited a Glendale, California Massage Envy location, claimed she was sexually assaulted during a massage by a male therapist. The lawsuit outlines systemic failures by Massage Envy to warn customers, investigate reports, and report sexual misconduct to authorities.

March 15, 2024: San Francisco Settles School Abuse Cases

The San Francisco Unified School District has settled two sexual abuse lawsuits involving allegations against a former athletic director at George Washington High School. The director allegedly abused two students during school hours on campus. Despite his resignation under a confidential agreement and the lack of a criminal conviction, the evidence led the district to settle the lawsuits. The settlement was approved to avoid further trauma to the survivors, allowing them to move forward with their lives. Another similar case is currently being pursued against the district involving a different teacher from Lowell High School.

February 21, 2024: New Human Trafficking Lawsuit

A woman initiated a lawsuit in a California federal court against the operators of hotels under the Wyndham brand, including Ramada and Super8, for their alleged complicity in her sex trafficking ordeal beginning in 2013. The complaint accuses the hotel owners of profiting from and facilitating sex trafficking by ignoring evident signs of exploitation that trained employees should have recognized. The allegations in this human trafficking lawsuit highlight a broader issue within the hotel industry – too many people are willing to look the other way.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendants, including franchisors and franchisees, were aware or should have been aware of the ongoing sex trafficking within their properties but failed to take meaningful action to stop it. This inaction, according to the complaint, amounted to a conscious decision to benefit financially from the exploitation of victims.

This woman is filing a lawsuit to hold these entities accountable for their role in perpetuating a safe environment for traffickers and failing to protect her and others from being trafficked, demanding compensation for the damages she endured as a result.

February 12, 2024 – Archdiocese of San Francisco Needs More Time

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Francisco has requested a three-month extension from a California bankruptcy judge to submit its Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

This is a pretty common page from the “defend sex abuse lawsuits” playbook. It is in line with strategies from past diocesan bankruptcies, focusing on mediation with claimants of childhood sexual abuse towards reaching a consensual agreement. These folks wisely do not want a trial. It is also worth noting that many of the people defending these lawsuits do feel for these victims. We do not want to suggest otherwise. But, that said, some of the tactics you see in these lawsuits are not coming from a place of love and understanding of the suffering victims have endured.

The extension aims to provide the archdiocese with adequate time to address the complex demands of over 500 sexual abuse claims, in addition to navigating communications with insurers and managing extensive document requests. The archdiocese, which filed for Chapter 11 protection in September to handle lawsuits triggered by a 2020 California law that lifted the statute of limitations for child sex abuse claims, seeks to extend the exclusive right to propose a reorganization plan until June 25 and to solicit plan votes until August 26.

February 8, 2024 – Los Angeles Sex Abuse Lawsuit Revived

In Arellano v. Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her case for wrongful termination after a sexual assault.

How could this possibly make sense? The case was dismissed because her claim of constructive wrongful termination in violation of public policy could not stand because the sexual assault she experienced was a single incident and because the defendants did not knowingly allow or intentionally create intolerable working conditions.

This poor woman worked as a janitor for the parish when she was sexually assaulted by an associate pastor, Father Primitivo Gonzalez, in his living quarters. This incident led to her being diagnosed with PTSD and depression, and she was later declared permanently unfit to resume work at the parish. Despite reporting the incident and the subsequent actions taken by the parish, such as Gonzalez being removed and the parish being notified, she sued for constructive wrongful termination.

The appellate court reversed, thankfully. The court found that a single incident of misconduct, particularly a violent crime such as sexual assault, could be considered as creating intolerable working conditions.

February 6, 2024 – Friends with Benefits Question

Does a “friends with benefits” relationship fall under the category of a “dating relationship” according to Family Code section 6210, which could then support a domestic violence tort claim? That is the question decided by the 4th Appellate District this week.

Before we get into it, why does this matter? A classification of a relationship is crucial in California because it impacts whether the plaintiff can claim damages for domestic violence.

So in this case, the plaintiff, M.A., filed a lawsuit against the defendant, B.F., alleging domestic violence and sexual battery after an incident where B.F. forcefully pulled her hair while in a car, causing her physical injuries. The plaintiff argued that they were in a dating relationship at the time of the incident. The defendant disagreed, calling it basically “friends with benefits.” An Orange County trial judge supported the defendant’s view, finding that there was not a dating relationship as defined by law, and thus ruled in the defendant’s favor.

M.A. appealed this decision, arguing that their “friends with benefits” relationship should be considered a dating relationship under the law, which would allow for a domestic violence claim. She suggested that the definition of a “dating relationship” should be broadened to include modern forms of relationships.

The court found that over 19 months, M.A. and B.F. had only met in person eight times, and the interactions were not deemed to be frequent or intimate enough to constitute a “dating relationship” as defined by the Family Code section 6210. This section defines a “dating relationship” as frequent, intimate associations with the expectation of affection or sexual involvement, independent of financial considerations.

February 5, 2024 – Lizzo Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Some claims against singer Lizzo, filed by her former dancers, were dismissed in the Los Angeles Superior Court last week. But the claims that really matter – sexual harassment and racial discrimination- will move forward.

The allegations allowed to move forward involve claims that a tour manager subjected the dancers to inappropriate sexual and religious comments, Lizzo coerced them into attending sexually explicit shows, and created a hostile work environment, among other accusations.

January 4, 2024 – The Franciscan Friars of California Bankruptcy

The Franciscan Friars of California Inc. has sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection at a California court, citing a surge in lawsuits triggered by the sex abuse law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on child sex abuse claims. The Roman Catholic organization, responsible for founding and maintaining Mission Santa Barbara in Buellton, California, faces 94 child sex abuse lawsuits.

Like so many church entities, bankruptcy was thought to be the best option. They claim it is also the most equitable solution but that is a hard argument to buy. The bankruptcy filing shows the group’s liabilities ranging from $10 million to $50 million, against assets of $1 million to $10 million. The organization runs several religious ministries, retreat centers, two cemeteries, and a theological graduate school affiliated with the University of San Diego.

December 29, 2023 – Uber Sex Abuse Lawsuits

The Uber sexual assault lawsuit in California is expected to heat up in 2024. Our firm is reviewing these cases. These lawsuits range from inappropriate comments to rape and kidnapping.

October 10, 2023 – Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Part 2

Governor Gavin Newsom approved a bill on Sunday, known as A.B. 1349, that holds social media platforms accountable for sharing child sexual abuse material. Introduced by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks and Heath Flora, this law, effective from 2025, permits lawsuits against such platforms if they display this illicit content.

The legislation received unanimous support in both the state Senate and Assembly. Advocates view this as a significant move toward ensuring online safety for children. The bill demands that platforms address reports of child abuse material and block related content. Failure to do so can lead to lawsuits, with fines ranging from $75,000 to $250,000 per incident.

Additionally, platforms may face charges of up to $4 million if they knowingly use algorithms promoting the commercial exploitation of minors. However, platforms that cooperate in audits and rectify issues won’t be penalized. While the tech industry has raised concerns about potential conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, changes were made to the bill to address some of these reservations.

September 14, 2023 – Holding Social Media Companies Accountable, Part 2

The California Assembly has passed A.B. 1349, a bill targeting social media platforms that distribute child sexual abuse material. Sponsored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D) and Heath Flora (R), the legislation mandates platforms to address and remove such content. Non-compliance could result in lawsuits with fines up to $250,000 per incident, though partnering with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children lowers the fine to $75,000.

The bill also includes penalties for platforms knowingly using algorithms promoting the commercial sexual exploitation of minors. Some tech companies have voiced concerns about potential conflicts with existing laws protecting platforms from user-generated content liability. Adjustments were made to the bill to alleviate these concerns.

June 19, 2023 – Sacramento Diocese Bankruptcy

The Sacramento Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church is considering bankruptcy. It faces over 200 lawsuits alleging sexual abuse of minors

What is Sexual Abuse or Assault in California?

Sexual abuse or sexual assault can range from forcible rape to groping. The legal definition of sexual assault in California includes any form of unwanted (i.e., non-consensual) touching or contact with another person’s intimate parts for the purpose of sexual satisfaction or arousal. Cal. Penal Code § 243.4 In the context of civil lawsuits, sexual abuse or assault is often referred to as sexual battery.

This broad definition encompasses a very wide range of sexual contact or touching. The 2 critical elements that must be present for the touching to constitute sexual battery are (1) intent, and (2) lack of consent.

To constitute a sexual battery, the touching or contact must be intentionally done for the purpose of sexual gratification or arousal. If your boss accidentally touches your breast at work or touches your butt to prevent you from falling, that is not considered sexual battery because there is no sexual intent.

The second element is a lack of consent. For an intentional sexual touching to constitute sexual battery, the touching must be non-consensual. Anyone under the age of 18 is considered a minor and lacks the capacity to give legal consent to any sexual touching. Therefore, any form of intentional sexual contact with a minor will automatically constitute sexual abuse or battery.

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse or Assault in California

Under California law, anyone who is a victim of sexual abuse or assault has the ability to file a civil lawsuit and seek monetary compensation. Abuse victims can bring a civil lawsuit regardless of whether they pressed criminal charges. In fact, victims can file suit even if they never reported or told anyone about the abuse when it happened.

To file a civil lawsuit for sexual abuse, victims simply need to be willing to testify under oath about the facts relating to the sexual abuse or assault. This testimony can be further supported by other evidence, such as medical records showing physical injuries resulting from the assault. Testimony from other factual witnesses can also be presented.

Although the sex abuse lawsuit will be a public record, California’s rules of civil procedure allow victims in these cases to conceal their names and identities in publicly filed court documents. For example, if Jessica Smith files a sexual abuse lawsuit, she can be named in the pleadings as “J.S.” or Jane Doe.

California Sex Abuse Lawsuit Nutshell

Victims of sexual abuse or assault are bringing lawsuits across California and securing substantial financial settlements. Recent legal changes have made it easier for survivors to hold institutions accountable—even in decades-old cases.

Average Settlement Ranges

While every case is different, many California sex abuse lawsuits resolve between $600,000 and $2 million.

Jury verdicts can exceed $10 million or more when an institution ignored warning signs.

Factors That Impact Compensation

The severity and duration of the abuse
Whether the institution had prior complaints and failed to act
The survivor’s long-term physical or emotional harm
If the abuse occurred in a setting of power or trust (school, church, hospital)
The skill and reputation of your lawyer — the best sexual abuse attorneys regularly secure higher settlements

Recent California Settlement Examples

$24 million – LAUSD settlement with three girls sexually abused by their 3rd grade teacher
$3.6 million – Prison visitor subjected to illegal cavity search at Tehachapi facility
$2.38 million – Student groomed and abused by principal at Barstow school

These amounts are not guarantees, but they reflect how seriously California courts take institutional abuse. If you’re considering a claim, having the
right legal team can make all the difference.

California Statute of Limitations for Sex Abuse Cases

California has expanded its civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse cases, giving more survivors access to justice. The current rules allow victims to file claims even decades after the abuse occurred.

Childhood abuse: Victims can file until age 40, or within 5 years of discovering the psychological impact of the abuse — whichever is later.
Adult sexual assault: Survivors have up to 10 years to file, or 3 years from the date they connect injuries to the abuse.

The statute of limitations for sex abuse lawsuit in California is confusing and full of exceptions. If you’re unsure whether you’re still eligible to sue, contact a lawyer immediately — deadlines matter, and every day counts.

How to File a California Sex Abuse Lawsuit

Filing a lawsuit may feel overwhelming — but a good legal team makes the process as easy and private as possible. Here’s how it usually works:

Free consultation: Speak confidentially with a lawyer to evaluate your case.
Investigation: Your attorney gathers evidence and identifies all liable parties.
Filing the lawsuit: Your lawyer files a civil complaint — your name can often remain confidential.
Settlement or trial: Most cases settle, but experienced lawyers are ready for trial if needed.

There’s no cost to speak with a lawyer and no fee unless you win.
You are not alone — and you deserve justice.

Holding Third Parties Liable in Sex Abuse Lawsuits

The obvious defendant in a sex abuse civil lawsuit would be the person who committed the abuse or assault. The only issue is that the person might already be dead or in jail, and even if they are still around, they probably don’t have enough money to pay a verdict or settlement for the lawsuit. Unless the abuser is someone who is very wealthy, suing them is often pointless.

The key to a successful sexual abuse lawsuit is going after third parties with deep pockets, such as schools, churches, or corporations. These third parties can be held liable if the victim can show that they were somehow negligent in preventing the sexual abuse or failing to protect the victim.

Here is an example of how third parties can be held liable in sex abuse civil lawsuits. Let’s say Jane was sexually abused by her high school teacher Bob. Although Jane never told anyone about the abuse, the school had received other reports and complaints about Bob engaging in inappropriate conduct with students. The school never investigated these reports. Jane can file a sex abuse lawsuit against the school on the grounds that it was negligent in failing to investigate Bob and protect Jane and other students from him.

California Statute of Limitations for Sex Abuse Lawsuits

A statute of limitations is basically a deadline for filing a civil lawsuit. If the statute of limitations period has expired, the plaintiff will be barred from filing suit. Under California law, the statute of limitations deadline is different depending on whether the victim was a child or an adult when the abuse occurred.

SOL for Childhood Sexual Assault: If the sexual abuse occurred when the victim was a minor (under the age of 18) the new California law allows the victim to file a civil lawsuit anytime before their 40^th birthday. CA Civ Pro Code § 340

SOL for Adult Sexual Assault (After 2019): If the victim was an adult and the sexual abuse occurred after January 1, 2019, California law allows the victim 10 years from the date of the last assault. CA Civ Pro Code § 340.16 There is also a 3-year discovery rule that can be used to extend this period.

How Sex Abuse Lawsuits in California Are Evaluated for Settlement

California sex abuse lawsuits against churches are evaluated for settlement based on various factors. These factors help determine the appropriate settlement amount and the likelihood of reaching an agreement between the parties involved. Some factors to consider include:

Strength of the evidence: The availability and quality of evidence supporting the victim’s claims are crucial in determining the potential success of the lawsuit. More substantial evidence can lead to a higher settlement amount as the churches and other sex abuse lawsuit defendants do not want to take a big verdict at trial. You do not need other victims alleging abuse against the same perpetrator to have a strong claim. But it does help a great deal.
Severity of the abuse: The extent and nature of the abuse suffered by the victim can impact the settlement amount. More severe cases of abuse may result in larger settlements due to the increased emotional and psychological damage suffered by the victim. Longer abuse is correlated with larger settlement payouts, but everyone understands that even one incident can be life-scarring.
Statute of limitations: As we talked about above, California has extended the statute of limitations for filing sex abuse lawsuits, allowing survivors more time to come forward with their claims. However, the age of the case and the availability of witnesses and evidence may still affect the settlement evaluation.
Damages: The victim’s damages, including emotional distress, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and lost wages, play a significant role in determining the settlement amount. Higher damages may lead to more significant settlement amounts. But the single largest part of any settlement will be the victim’s pain and suffering damages.
Extent of church or corporate liability: The level of responsibility or negligence by the church or the responsibility of just how much they failed the victim will affect the settlement amount of a California sex abuse lawsuit. If the church or corporation was either aware of the abuse or clearly turned a blind eye to all of the clues, that has a real impact. If they tried to cover it up, a jury would destroy them, and that impacts settlement payouts.
Reputation and financial resources of the church or corporation: The financial position and public image of the church can influence the settlement amount. Larger, more established churches are more likely to settle for higher amounts to protect their reputation and avoid a lengthy trial. Conversely, if the defendant does not have assets or Insurance coverage, that is a problem
Your sex abuse lawyer: The experience and skill of the attorneys representing both the victim and the church or company can influence the settlement process and the final settlement amount. The best California sex abuse lawyers fetch the higher settlement amounts for their clients.

How Much Can You Sue for in a California Sexual Assault?

There is no specific cap on the amount you can sue for in a sexual assault lawsuit in California. Damages in sex abuse cases can be both economic – covering things like medical expenses and lost wages – and non-economic for pain, suffering, and emotional distress. The total amount that can be sued depends on the specifics of the case, including the severity of the harm caused, the impact on the victim’s life, and any punitive damages awarded.

California Sex Abuse Verdicts and Settlements

One path to assist in understanding how much your California sex abuse lawsuit might be worth is comparing your case to previous settlements and verdicts in similar cases involving sexual abuse. So we provide these below. They absolutely help you understand the range of settlement amounts in these cases.

But do not fall into the trap of thinking you can determine how much your case is worth by looking at the example settlements and verdicts. While these can provide valuable insights into potential compensation, you have to understand that every case is unique and complex, and it’s not possible to accurately summarize a case in a single paragraph. You cannot assume that a similar case will have the same outcome.

So it is crucial to recognize that there are many factors at play in any given sex abuse case, and a settlement or verdict in one case cannot predict the outcome of another. Therefore, prior settlements and verdicts can be used as a tool to gain a general understanding of the range of potential compensation, but should be considered in conjunction with other case evaluation tools to accurately determine the value of your claim.

Below are summaries of verdicts and reported settlements from sex abuse cases in California, including recent clergy sex abuse payouts in California.

$24,000,000 Settlement (California 2024): 3 women sued the Los Angeles Unified School District claiming that they were sexually abused by their 3rd grade teacher at Langdon Avenue Elementary School in North Hills. LAUSD had apparently received dozens of prior complaints about the teacher engaging in inappropriate behavior with female students.
$2,380,000 Settlement (California 2024): A former student was sexually abused by the principal of Barstow STEM Academy. The principal, who pleaded guilty to one count of child molestation in 2016, had a sexual relationship with the 17-year-old student. Barstow Unified School District has agreed to a $2.38 million settlement to resolve the claim.
$3.6 Million Settlement (California 2024): A woman received a settlement after enduring multiple invasive searches while attempting to visit her husband at the California Correctional Institution. The majority of the settlement was paid by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, with additional contributions from a doctor, two correctional officers, and a hospital. Despite a search warrant prohibiting cavity searches without X-ray confirmation of contraband, a doctor forcibly conducted the search. Of course, they found no contraband. The woman was denied her visit, handcuffed, refused bathroom access, and left without water during the ordeal.
$2,300,000,000 Verdict (California 2023): The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually abused for years by her stepfather (a Mormon church elder). She filed suit against her stepfather, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and her mother. In April 2023, a jury awarded $2.3 billion in damages. The award was largely symbolic, however, as it was against only the stepfather. The plaintiff had already settled her claims against the Church for $1.2 million.
$374,400,000 Settlement (California 2022): The University of California system agreed to pay a total of over $374.4 million to settle claims by 312 women who were the victims of sexual abuse by former UCLA gynecologist Dr. James Heap. The UC system has paid a total of over $700 million to resolve claims involving sexual abuse of patients by Dr. Heap.
$244,250 Settlement (California 2021): In this case, a 15-year-old girl was placed in a foster home where she was sexually abused by the adult son of the foster parents. She filed suit against the County and the foster family agency because they failed to take action to stop the abuse, and failed to establish and follow appropriate policies to supervise her safety in foster care.
$250,000 Settlement (California 2020): The plaintiff in this case alleged that when he was an inmate at a juvenile detention center, he was sexually assaulted by one of the guards on 4 separate occasions. He reported the incidents, but the defendant did not take any action against the officer and the staff at the facility allegedly retaliated against him for making the report.
$504,604 Settlement (California 2020): The plaintiff was put in a foster home and then sexually abused by an older boy who was also living at the home. Despite reporting the incident, he was left in the home after which he was assaulted again. A guardian for the boy brought a lawsuit against the County and the foster care agency.
$625,000 Settlement (California 2019): A minor female was allegedly sexually abused by the head of a youth club funded by the county. She filed suit against the County claiming that it knew or should have known about the coach’s propensity to engage in this conduct and that they were aware of the incidents but did nothing to stop it.
$325,000 Settlement (California 2019): The plaintiff, an adult female, claimed that she was sexually assaulted by a correctional officer on several occasions while she an inmate at a county jail. The lawsuit alleged that the County knew about the officer’s issues and negligently allowed him to continue supervising women inmates.

California Clergy Sex Abuse Payouts

$15,100,000 – San Bernardino Diocese: The San Bernardino Diocese agreed to pay a total of $15.1 million to resolve the claims of 11 victims who alleged that they were sexually abused by priests at the Diocese.
$5,000,000 – Santa Rosa Diocese: 10 victims of former Rev. Francisco Ochoa-Perez (who fled to Mexico to avoid criminal prosecution) split a settlement of $5 million.
3,500,000 – Diocese of Oakland: A former seminarian who claimed he was sexually abused by Father Michael Van Dinh in 2017 received a $3.5 million settlement payout.

Eight Steps if You Are the Victim of Sexual Assault in California

If you are a victim of sexual assault in California, there are certain things that you should do to prepare for a potential legal claim. But, more important than that is to prioritize your safety. Here are things to keep in mind:

Ensure your immediate safety: The first and most crucial step is to get yourself to a safe place, away from the perpetrator. Sex abuse victims often do not fully appreciate how much people want to help victims. Reach out to a friend, family member, or a nearby safe location where you feel secure. After you have your immediate safety squared away, figure out if there are longer-term safety risks and how to protect against those risks.
Seek medical attention: Even if you don’t think you have sustained any physical injuries, it is crucial to get a medical examination. A healthcare professional can assess your condition, treat any injuries, and collect evidence that could be useful in a legal case. In California, you can undergo a forensic medical exam within 120 hours (5 days) of the assault to collect vital evidence. Remember to avoid showering, changing clothes, or cleaning up in any way, as this may destroy crucial evidence.
Report the assault to the police: Reporting the incident to the police is an essential step in seeking justice and holding the perpetrator accountable. You can choose to report the assault immediately or at a later time. In California, there is no statute of limitations for rape, sodomy, lewd acts with a child, or continuous sexual abuse of a child. For other forms of sexual assault, the statute of limitations varies, but it is generally better to report as soon as possible. Reporting as soon as possible makes it easier for everyone who wants to assist you in bringing justice in the criminal and civil justice systems.
Preserve evidence: If you decide to pursue legal action, preserving evidence can help strengthen your case and make it safer for the next victim. Save any clothing you were wearing at the time of the assault, as well as any other items that could serve as evidence, such as text messages or photographs. Keep them in a safe place and avoid tampering with them.
Reach out for support: Coping with the emotional and psychological effects of sexual assault can be challenging. Reach out to friends, family, or a counselor for emotional support. You can also connect with local or national organizations, such as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), which operates a 24/7 hotline at 1-800-656-HOPE (4673).
Seek legal advice: It is never too early to talk to a California sexual assault attorney. You do not need to hire someone right away. But you do need to understand your rights and legal options.
Apply for a restraining order: If you fear for your safety, one option is to apply for a restraining order against the perpetrator.
Be kind to yourself: Healing from a sexual assault can be a long and challenging journey. Prioritize your mental and emotional well-being by seeking therapy or counseling, joining a support group, or engaging in activities that promote relaxation and healing, such as meditation or exercise.

Key California Sex Assault Appellate Law

Below are some of the key appellate court decisions in California sex abuse cases:

Jane S.D. Doe v. Superior Court (2023)

This case involves a former student, Jane Doe, suing a school district over claims of sexual molestation by a teacher. The school district wanted to introduce evidence of a separate molestation incident involving Doe to challenge her credibility regarding emotional distress damages.

The Supreme Court clarified that while specific evidence of a plaintiff’s sexual conduct is generally not admissible to prove consent or the absence of injury, there is an exception that allows such evidence to be used to attack the credibility of the plaintiff, provided procedural safeguards are followed.

The court found that the trial court did not properly apply these procedures, including not holding a required hearing and not specifying what evidence could be introduced and how.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court correctly questioned the lower court’s application of the law regarding the admissibility of evidence under the discretion to exclude evidence that might be more prejudicial than probative. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny to protect the complainant’s privacy rights and prevent unnecessary intrusion into their personal lives.

The court sent the case back to the trial court to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance, including, thankfully, a proper examination of the admissibility of the evidence concerning the separate molestation incident and its relevance to the plaintiff’s credibility and emotional distress damages.

James Safechuck v. MJJ Productions, Inc. (2023).

The California Court of Appeal tackled the issue of whether two corporations owned by Michael Jackson, MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc., had a legal duty to protect two children from alleged sexual abuse.

The court concluded that a corporation cannot avoid a duty to protect children from sexual abuse by its employees, including its sole owner, based solely on its corporate structure. It found that the corporations facilitated Jackson’s access to the plaintiffs, thereby having an affirmative duty to protect them. This duty exists despite the corporations being solely owned by Jackson, the alleged abuser.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuits, like the case below, were initially dismissed due to the statute of limitations, but legislative changes made their claims timely, leading to the reversal of the dismissal. The court found the corporations’ arguments—that they could not control Jackson because he was their sole owner—unpersuasive. It emphasized that entities in a position to prevent harm must do so, particularly when the welfare of children is at stake.

The decision was influenced by the principle that organizations should take cost-effective steps to prevent foreseeable harm, especially to vulnerable individuals like children. This case highlighted the courts’ role in enforcing such principles, ensuring entities cannot evade their responsibilities through corporate structures or the power dynamics within those structures.

This case is not interesting because it involves someone famous. The ruling has broader implications for every California abuse case. This is a lesson on how organizations are held accountable for protecting individuals from abuse, especially in cases where the abuser is in a position of power or control. It sends a clear message that corporations, regardless of their ownership structure, have a duty to protect from foreseeable harm, reinforcing the importance of prioritizing the safety and well-being of vulnerable individuals over corporate interests or hierarchies.

Coats v. New Haven Unified School Dist (2020)

This case is about a student and her foster mother who sued their school district alleging that the student had been sexually abused by one of her teachers. Initially, their lawsuit was tossed out because they didn’t file a formal complaint with the school district in time, as required by law.

While their appeal was ongoing, California law was amended to revive claims of childhood sexual abuse that previously could not be brought forward due to statutory deadlines having passed. So, for the student, the appeals court said her lawsuit could go ahead after all because of this new law.

But, there was a catch for the foster mother’s part of the lawsuit. The court said the law that let the student sue didn’t apply to the foster mother’s emotional distress claims. Basically, the court found that the law was really meant to help direct victims of abuse, not others who might be indirectly affected, like family members feeling emotional pain because of what happened to the victim.

However, the court did not extend the same revival to the foster mother’s emotional distress claims. The court determined that the legislative changes were intended to benefit direct victims of childhood sexual abuse, not indirect victims such as family members affected by learning about the abuse. Therefore, while the student’s case was allowed to continue, the foster mother’s related claims were not revived, and her part of the lawsuit remained dismissed.

Juvenile Detention Center Lawsuits in California

Sex abuse lawsuits against California detention center employees at juvenile halls and juvenile probation officers in California exploded with the passing of the new statute of limitations window. These cases are still very strong today as long as the statute of limitations has not passed.

Juvenile hall lawsuits allege severe misconduct and abuse of power, highlighting the vulnerability of the juveniles in these facilities. Victims claim that they have been subjected to sexual harassment, abuse, and assault by the very individuals entrusted with their care and rehabilitation.

The litigation focuses on what we now know were awful systemic failures within these institutions, including inadequate supervision, poor training, and a culture that allowed sex abuses to go unchecked. Plaintiffs’ juvenile hall lawsuits argue that the state and local authorities failed to implement and enforce appropriate safeguards to protect the detainees.

California’s largest juvenile detention centers, which have faced scrutiny and legal challenges, include Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, Central Juvenile Hall, and Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall.

Hiring a California Sex Abuse Lawyer

Our law firm handles sex abuse lawsuits in California and across the nation. Get information about where you begin and what this path will look like. We truly care about what you have been through. You can get a free no-obligation consultation online or call us today at 800-553-8082.