California AB 250 Sexual Assault Claim Revival: Can You File an Expired Claim in 2026?

What AB 250 Actually Changed

For survivors of adult sexual assault in California, the statute of limitations has often been the single biggest barrier to accountability — not the facts, not the evidence, and not the willingness to come forward. People disclose on their own timeline. Institutions, meanwhile, have historically had every incentive to run out the clock.

Assembly Bill 250, chaptered as Stats. 2025, Ch. 682, and effective January 1, 2026, amended California Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 by adding a new subdivision (e). That subdivision revives certain civil claims for damages from a sexual assault that occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday — claims that "would otherwise be barred before January 1, 2026, solely because the applicable statute of limitations has or had expired."

That phrase matters. The revival is about timing only. It does not create a new cause of action, it does not lower the standard of proof, and it does not make a weak case strong. What it does is reopen the courthouse door for a defined group of survivors, for a defined period of time.

The Revival Window: January 1, 2026 – December 31, 2027

Under CCP § 340.16(e)(1), a qualifying revived claim:

• May proceed if it was already pending in court on January 1, 2026; or
• May be commenced between January 1, 2026 and December 31, 2027.

As of today — September 21, 2026 — a little over fifteen months remain. That sounds generous. In practice it is not. Reviving a decade-old claim means locating records that institutions may have already purged, identifying and serving corporate entities that have merged, dissolved, or rebranded, tracking down witnesses who have moved out of state, and retaining experts to connect the assault to long-term psychological injury. Complaints filed in the final weeks of a revival window are routinely the weakest ones on file, simply because nobody had time to investigate before the deadline forced the filing.

Who Qualifies Under Subdivision (e)

The threshold requirements are narrower than most headlines suggested. To fall within the AB 250 revival, all of the following must be true:

1. The assault occurred on or after the plaintiff's 18th birthday. Section 340.16 is the adult sexual assault statute. Childhood sexual assault claims are governed by a different statute, CCP § 340.1, with its own rules and its own prior revival windows.
2. The claim was barred before January 1, 2026 solely because the limitations period expired. If a claim failed for some other reason — it was dismissed on the merits, or it was released — the revival does not resurrect it.
3. The conduct falls within the statutory definition of "sexual assault." Subdivision (b)(1) ties this to specific Penal Code provisions — sections 243.4, 261, 264.1, 286, 287, and 289, and former sections 262 and 288a — along with assault with intent to commit, or an attempt to commit, those crimes.
4. The defendant is not a public entity. This exclusion is discussed in detail below and is the single most common disqualifier.

Importantly, subdivision (b)(2) confirms that no criminal prosecution or conviction is required. A survivor who never reported to police, or who reported and saw the case declined or acquitted, can still bring a civil claim. The civil standard is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That difference is why civil claims succeed in cases that criminal courts never resolved.

The Cover-Up Requirement, Explained

This is the core of AB 250, and the part most often misunderstood. The statute treats claims against entities and claims against the perpetrator differently.

Claims against an entity — subdivision (e)(2)

To revive a claim against an organization, the plaintiff must allege both:

• That one or more entities or persons — including but not limited to the perpetrator — are legally responsible for damages arising out of the sexual assault; and
• That an entity or entities, "including, but not limited to, their officers, directors, representatives, employees, or agents, engaged in a cover up or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegations of sexual assault by an alleged perpetrator of such abuse."

Read that second element carefully. The cover-up must relate to a previous instance or allegation involving the same alleged perpetrator. The theory the Legislature embraced is institutional: an organization that buried an earlier complaint and left a known risk in place should not benefit from the delay that its own concealment helped cause.

The statutory definition of "cover up"

Subdivision (e)(5)(A) defines a cover up as a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information relating to a sexual assault from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff — "including, but not limited to, the use of nondisclosure agreements or confidentiality agreements."

In real cases, that language reaches conduct such as:

• Settling an earlier complaint with an NDA that silenced the prior complainant;
• Quietly transferring, promoting, or allowing the quiet resignation of an accused individual instead of investigating;
• Closing an internal HR investigation without findings, then destroying or withholding the file;
• Requiring complainants to sign confidentiality terms as a condition of remaining employed, enrolled, or housed;
• Instructing staff not to discuss an earlier allegation.

Claims against the perpetrator — subdivision (e)(3)

Against the perpetrator personally, the revival applies where the plaintiff alleges the assault and that one or more entities or persons — again including the perpetrator — are legally responsible for the resulting damages. And under subdivision (e)(4), failure to allege a cover up as to one entity does not defeat revival as to any other entity or person, including the perpetrator. A defective cover-up allegation against one defendant does not sink the entire case.

Which Organizations Can Be Sued

Subdivision (e)(5)(B) defines "entity" broadly: a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, association, or other legal entity — other than a public entity. Subdivision (e)(5)(C) then defines "legally responsible" to mean liable under any theory of liability established by statute or common law, including but not limited to negligence, intentional torts, and vicarious liability.

Together, those definitions cover a wide range of private organizations found throughout Southern California:

The practical effect of naming an entity is not only accountability. It is also solvency. Individual perpetrators are frequently judgment-proof. Organizations carry commercial general liability, employment practices liability, and excess coverage — which is why the institutional claim is usually the one that makes a survivor whole.

Who Is Excluded — Including Public Entities

Subdivision (e)(7) is explicit. The revival does not reach:

• Claims litigated to finality in a court of competent jurisdiction before January 1, 2026;
• Claims compromised by a written settlement agreement entered into between the parties before January 1, 2026;
• Claims against a public entity — including direct claims, derivative claims, and vicarious liability claims. The statute adds that for claims against the perpetrator or other persons, a public entity has no duty to indemnify under Government Code section 825 or any other law.

The public entity carve-out is the most consequential limitation in the bill. In Los Angeles, it means that claims arising at public school districts, the county, the city, public university campuses, public hospitals, and public transit agencies fall outside AB 250's revival. Those claims remain governed by the ordinary limitations rules and, critically, by the six-month government claim presentation deadline under the Government Claims Act — one of the shortest and least forgiving deadlines in California law.

Finally, subdivision (e)(8) confirms the revival "shall not be construed to alter the otherwise applicable burden of proof, as defined in Section 115 of the Evidence Code." Reviving a claim does not make it easier to win. It only makes it possible to file.

What This Means in Los Angeles

Los Angeles County is home to the largest concentration of the private institutions AB 250 targets — entertainment and production companies, talent and modeling agencies, private universities, hospitality and nightlife operations, fitness and wellness chains, private medical groups, and religious and nonprofit organizations. It is also a jurisdiction with a long documented history of NDA-driven settlements in exactly the industries the statute describes.

Most revived LA County claims will be filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court system, with the Stanley Mosk Courthouse downtown handling a substantial share of general civil filings. Survivors should expect a realistic timeline measured in years, not months: a revived claim is an old claim, which means heavier motion practice, contested discovery over historical personnel and settlement records, and likely challenges to the sufficiency of the cover-up allegations. LA's civil calendar congestion compounds that.

California also gives plaintiffs a meaningful procedural tool here. Under CCP § 340.16 claims, a plaintiff may in appropriate cases seek to proceed using a pseudonym to protect identity. Privacy concerns are legitimate and they are addressable — they are not a reason to stay silent.

If your situation involves a crash, a fall, or another injury alongside these facts, our related guides may help: car accident claims in Los Angeles and slip and fall and premises liability in Los Angeles both address the evidence-preservation and deadline issues that overlap with institutional claims.

Building an Old Case: Evidence and Proof

The hardest part of a revived claim is rarely the survivor's own testimony. It is proving what the institution knew and what it did about it. The evidence that decides these cases typically includes:

• Prior complaint files — HR intake forms, Title IX records at private institutions, internal investigation memoranda, and outside-counsel investigation reports;
• Settlement and NDA documents from earlier complainants involving the same alleged perpetrator;
• Personnel records showing transfers, schedule changes, discipline, promotions, or an abrupt separation following a complaint;
• Contemporaneous communications — emails, texts, Slack messages, and calendar entries from the relevant period;
• Corroborating witnesses, including prior complainants who may now be willing to speak;
• Medical and mental health records documenting the psychological injury and its onset, including PTSD, anxiety, and depression diagnoses;
• Document retention and destruction policies, which themselves become evidence when records are missing.

Two practical points. First, preservation letters should go out early. Once an entity is on notice of anticipated litigation, its duty to preserve relevant records attaches, and destruction after that point can support a spoliation argument. Second, do not destroy your own materials — old messages, journals, emails, calendars, and therapy records are frequently the strongest corroboration a survivor has, even when they feel painful to revisit.

Damages and Related Claims

A revived claim can seek the same damages as any other California personal injury action, including:

• Economic damages — past and future medical and mental health treatment, therapy, medication, lost earnings, and lost earning capacity where a career was derailed;
• Non-economic damages — pain, suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, and loss of enjoyment of life;
• Punitive damages against defendants whose conduct meets California's standard of oppression, fraud, or malice by clear and convincing evidence — a standard that institutional concealment evidence can be directly relevant to.

AB 250 also reaches beyond the assault claim itself. Subdivision (e)(6) revives related claims — including wrongful termination and sexual harassment — arising out of the sexual assault that is the basis for the revived claim. For survivors who were pushed out of a job after reporting, that provision can be as significant as the assault claim itself.

What to Do Now

1. Determine which deadline governs your claim. You may not be time-barred at all under § 340.16(a). If you are, you may fall under the (b)(3) window closing December 31, 2026, or the AB 250 (e) window closing December 31, 2027. These are different tests with different dates.
2. Identify every potentially responsible entity — employers, venues, schools, contractors, staffing agencies, and parent companies. Corporate successors matter.
3. Write down what you remember, dated, while it is accessible. Contemporaneous notes carry weight.
4. Gather and preserve your own records. Do not delete anything.
5. Speak with a California attorney well before the deadline, not near it. Investigation takes months.

Consultations with our firm are free and confidential, and we handle these matters on a contingency fee basis — there is no fee unless we recover for you.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is California AB 250?

AB 250 (Stats. 2025, Ch. 682) amended Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16 effective January 1, 2026. It added subdivision (e), reviving certain adult sexual assault claims that were otherwise barred before January 1, 2026 solely because the statute of limitations had expired.

When does the AB 250 revival window close?

A revived claim may proceed if it was already pending in court on January 1, 2026, or it may be commenced between January 1, 2026 and December 31, 2027. After that date, the window closes.

Do I have to prove a cover-up?

To revive a claim against an entity, yes — the plaintiff must allege both legal responsibility and that an entity engaged in or attempted a cover up of a previous instance or allegation of sexual assault by the alleged perpetrator. Claims against the perpetrator are revived under subdivision (e)(3) without that allegation, and under (e)(4) a failed cover-up allegation as to one entity does not defeat revival as to others.

What counts as a "cover up"?

A concerted effort to hide evidence relating to a sexual assault that incentivizes individuals to remain silent or prevents information from becoming public or being disclosed to the plaintiff — expressly including the use of nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements.

Can I sue a public entity under AB 250?

No. Subdivision (e)(7)(C) excludes claims against public entities, including direct, derivative, and vicarious liability claims, and the definition of "entity" excludes public entities. A public entity also has no duty to indemnify a perpetrator under Government Code section 825 for these revived claims. Claims involving public agencies remain subject to the six-month government claim presentation deadline.

What if my case already settled?

Claims compromised by a written settlement agreement entered into before January 1, 2026, and claims litigated to finality before that date, are not revived.

Do I need to have reported to the police?

No. Section 340.16(b)(2) states that no criminal prosecution or conviction is required. A civil claim is decided by a preponderance of the evidence.

Does AB 250 make my case easier to win?

No. Subdivision (e)(8) preserves the otherwise applicable burden of proof under Evidence Code section 115. The revival changes only whether a claim may be filed, not what must be proven.

Can I file anonymously?

California courts can permit plaintiffs in sexual assault cases to proceed by pseudonym in appropriate circumstances. This is decided by the court on a case-by-case basis, and it is a question worth raising with counsel before filing.

Sources

• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 340.16 (as amended by Stats. 2025, Ch. 682 (AB 250), effective January 1, 2026) — California Legislative Information
• AB 250 — Sexual assault: statute of limitations, bill text — California Legislative Information
• Cal. Gov. Code § 825 (public entity indemnification); Cal. Evid. Code § 115 (burden of proof)