A new California law lets adults whose sexual abuse civil claims expired under the regular statute of limitations sue both perpetrators and the institutions that enabled them - but only through December 31, 2027.
Reviewed by Survivor Justice Alliance · Updated 2026-06-29
Source: California AB 250 (signed Oct. 13, 2025); California Code of Civil Procedure
Assembly Bill 250 was signed into law on October 13, 2025, and took effect January 1, 2026. It creates a temporary two-year revival window running through December 31, 2027, during which adult survivors of sexual assault in California can file civil lawsuits that the state's regular statute of limitations would otherwise block. The law specifically targets adult survivors - those who were 18 years of age or older at the time of the abuse - distinguishing it from AB 218, which created a similar window for childhood sexual abuse survivors.
The types of situations covered are broad: workplace sexual assault, abuse by clergy, assault in professional or therapeutic relationships, and other circumstances in which an institution's negligence or deliberate concealment prevented timely legal action. Any private organization that employed, supervised, or otherwise enabled the perpetrator may face institutional liability alongside the individual who committed the abuse.
Governmental entities and public agencies are explicitly excluded from AB 250. A survivor whose abuse occurred at a public hospital, public university, or other government-run institution faces different procedural rules and timelines. For claims against public entities, a survivor should consult an attorney immediately because government claim notice requirements are typically much shorter than civil statutes of limitations.
California's standard civil statute of limitations for adult sexual assault allows survivors 10 years from the date of the assault, or 3 years from the date the survivor discovered that psychological injury resulted from the abuse, whichever is longer. For many adult survivors - particularly those whose abuse occurred before 2016 or whose connection between current harm and past abuse was not apparent until recently - both of those windows have already closed.
AB 250 sets aside those expired deadlines for the two-year revival period. It does not extend the regular statute of limitations going forward. It specifically revives claims that have already run. A survivor whose 10-year window expired in 2014, for example, can file a claim under AB 250 as though the limitation period had not run, provided they file before December 31, 2027.
Because this window is one-time and temporary, the urgency for eligible survivors is real. Once December 31, 2027 passes, the revival provision ends. Investigations, evidence gathering, and preparation of a civil complaint take meaningful time even when the legal right to file is clear. Survivors who believe they may have a viable claim should consult with an attorney as early as possible to ensure adequate time to build and file the case.
AB 250 expressly allows survivors to sue institutions alongside individual perpetrators. This matters enormously in cases where the institution's role was as significant as the individual's - a supervisor who knew of complaints and reassigned rather than terminated an abuser, a church that transferred clergy to avoid investigation, a licensing authority that ignored prior reports. AB 250 makes these organizations legally accountable for the downstream harm that their failures caused.
Establishing institutional liability requires showing that the organization knew or reasonably should have known about the risk posed by the individual and failed to take appropriate protective action. Discovery in civil proceedings can compel the production of internal records - personnel files, prior complaints, communications among leadership - that document institutional knowledge. This documentation is typically unavailable outside the litigation process but is accessible through properly initiated civil discovery.
For survivors concerned about privacy, California courts offer options including pseudonymous filing and sealing of sensitive records in appropriate cases. An attorney experienced in adult sexual abuse civil litigation can advise on what privacy protections apply to the specific facts of a case and what the practical tradeoffs are between protecting identity and presenting the strongest possible claim.
Survivors evaluating a potential AB 250 claim should take several concrete steps. First, identify the approximate timeline of events: when the abuse occurred, the institutional context surrounding it, and whether the institution was a private entity. This helps an attorney quickly assess whether AB 250 applies and whether the December 2027 deadline allows sufficient time to prepare and file.
Second, gather whatever contemporaneous documentation exists: emails, texts, medical or therapy records, journal entries, or any prior reports made to employers, HR departments, religious authorities, or licensing boards. Documentation is helpful but not required - civil cases can proceed on a survivor's testimony alone when supported by evidence developed through discovery from the defendant institution.
Third, consult with a civil attorney who handles adult sexual abuse cases in California. The Survivor Justice Alliance connects survivors confidentially with attorneys in our network who accept AB 250 claims on a contingency basis - no out-of-pocket cost and payment only from any recovery obtained on behalf of the survivor.
An initial consultation is confidential and typically free of charge. These questions help survivors get the most out of a first meeting with a civil attorney.
The Survivor Justice Alliance is an attorney alliance and advocacy organization, not a law firm; nothing here is legal advice. Attorney advertising. Referrals and consultations are free, and alliance attorneys work on contingency. Support is available 24/7 at the RAINN hotline, 800-656-4673.
Yes, if the therapist is employed by or affiliated with a private practice, private hospital, or other non-governmental organization. Both the individual therapist and the employing entity may face liability. However, if the facility was a public hospital or government agency, the public entity exclusion from AB 250 applies and different procedural rules govern.
The closure of an institution does not automatically extinguish liability. Successor organizations, parent entities, and in some cases insurers that covered the institution during the relevant period may remain viable defendants. An attorney can investigate the institutional structure to identify which entities are still reachable. This is one reason to consult early - assets can dissipate and institutional structures can change over time.
It depends on the terms of any prior settlement. A prior settlement that released all claims against specific parties likely shields those parties from a new AB 250 action. However, a prior settlement may not have released claims against a different institutional defendant not covered by the earlier agreement. An attorney should review the prior settlement documentation before advising on this question.
No. AB 218 created a revival window specifically for survivors who were minors at the time of the abuse. AB 250 is separate legislation for adults - those who had reached adulthood at the time the abuse took place. The two laws have different qualifying conditions, different covered time periods, and different institutional scope. A survivor abused both as a minor and as an adult may have claims under both laws - a question for an attorney to evaluate.