California Adult Sexual Assault Revival Window Lawyer: AB 250 and AB 2777 Deadlines Under CCP § 340.16

HOME › CALIFORNIA PERSONAL INJURY › PRODUCT LIABILITY AND ABUSE › ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT REVIVAL WINDOWS

Last updated: April 2026 — Reflects California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16 as amended by AB 250 (Chapter 631, Statutes of 2025, signed October 13, 2025), the AB 2777 Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act (2022), the AB 250 entity cover-up revival framework effective January 1, 2026, Civil Code § 3294, and the controlling California authority on adult sexual assault civil litigation in effect as of January 1, 2026

California adult sexual assault survivors face two distinct revival windows currently operating under CCP § 340.16, each with its own eligibility rules, filing deadlines, and procedural requirements. The AB 2777 window, enacted in 2022, closes on December 31, 2026 — less than a year from now.

The AB 250 window, signed into law in October 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, remains open through December 31, 2027. Each window revives otherwise time-barred claims within its specific eligibility framework, and many survivors may qualify for one window, both windows, or neither, depending on the facts of their case.

The practical stakes are substantial. Survivors whose claims would have been time-barred under the ordinary ten-year statute of limitations may find that the revival windows preserve their ability to pursue civil recovery.

Institutional defendants — employers, entertainment companies, religious organizations, sports organizations, and others that concealed sexual assault through nondisclosure agreements, settlement concealment, internal investigation suppression, or similar conduct — face substantial exposure under the AB 250 framework specifically targeted at cover-up practices.

For the broader product liability and abuse framework, see our California Product Liability and Abuse guide.

Baseline Adult Sexual Assault Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16(a), as currently structured, provides the baseline statute of limitations for adult sexual assault civil claims:

• 10 years from the occurrence of the assault, OR

• 3 years from the date the plaintiff discovered or reasonably should have discovered that an injury or illness resulted from the sexual assault,

  whichever period expires later.

The ten-year ordinary period is substantially longer than the two-year personal injury statute under CCP § 335.1, reflecting the particular difficulty of timely disclosure and litigation of sexual assault claims.

The three-year discovery rule provides additional protection for survivors who experience delayed connection between the assault and its psychological consequences — a pattern extensively documented in trauma research.

"Adult sexual assault" under § 340.16 means conduct occurring when the plaintiff was 18 or older that would constitute a criminal offense under specified California Penal Code sections.

The definition encompasses the full range of adult sexual assault conduct — rape, sexual battery, sexual penetration by force, assault with intent to commit sexual offenses, and related conduct.

AB 2777 Revival Window — Closing December 31, 2026

The Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act, enacted as AB 2777 in 2022 and effective January 1, 2023, created a three-year revival window for certain adult sexual assault civil claims.

Eligibility under AB 2777:

• The sexual assault must have occurred on or after January 1, 2009

• The claim was time-barred as of January 1, 2023 under the then-applicable statutes of limitations

• Claims can be brought against perpetrators, entities, persons who aided or concealed the assault, or persons who engaged in a cover-up

• The filing window extends from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2026

Exclusions:

• Claims that were litigated to finality in court before January 1, 2023

• Claims against public entities (subject to specific government immunities)

The window has been particularly significant in entertainment industry cases, corporate employer cases involving executive misconduct, and religious institutional cases involving adult victims.

The window closes on December 31, 2026 — survivors whose claims fall within AB 2777 eligibility have less than nine months remaining to file as of this publication date.

AB 250 Revival Window — Open Through December 31, 2027

Governor Newsom signed AB 250 into law on October 13, 2025, amending CCP § 340.16 to create a new two-year revival window specifically targeting adult sexual assault claims against entities that engaged in cover-up conduct.

Eligibility under AB 250:

• The sexual assault can have occurred at any time (no date floor for the underlying assault)

• The claim targets an entity that engaged in cover-up conduct related to the sexual assault

• Revival extends to claims against the perpetrators themselves (when brought alongside cover-up entity claims)

• The filing window extends from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2027

Cover-Up Definition Under AB 250:

The statute defines "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."

This definition is substantively broad and specifically targets several categories of institutional conduct:

• Nondisclosure agreements and confidentiality provisions in employment agreements, settlement agreements, severance packages, or employee handbooks that effectively silence victims or witnesses

• Settlement concealment — paying settlements conditional on non-disclosure that prevent other victims from learning of the perpetrator's conduct

• Internal investigation suppression — conducting internal investigations that conclude without public disclosure, without reporting to law enforcement, or without meaningful consequence for the perpetrator

• Personnel record alteration or suppression — removing or concealing documentation of sexual assault allegations from employment records

• Retaliation against disclosers — terminating, demoting, or otherwise punishing employees or witnesses who report sexual assault

• Transfer or reassignment of known abusers — moving known or suspected perpetrators to different roles, facilities, or geographies without addressing the underlying conduct

• Public misrepresentation — making false public statements denying awareness of the conduct or the risk posed by the perpetrator

Public Entity Exclusion Under AB 250

CCP § 340.16(e)(7)(C) explicitly excludes public entities from the AB 250 revival window. The exclusion covers:

• The State of California and its agencies

• The Regents of the University of California

• County and municipal governments

• Public school districts

• State colleges and universities

• Other governmental and quasi-governmental entities

The exclusion reflects the legislative compromise that enabled AB 250 to pass despite concerns about the fiscal impact on public entities.

Survivors whose claims involve public entity cover-up conduct retain any pre-AB 250 filing rights under the ordinary CCP § 340.16 statute and the AB 2777 window where applicable, but cannot use AB 250 revival against public entity defendants.

Comparing the Two Revival Windows — 2026 Eligibility

California Adult Sexual Assault Revival Windows — 2026 Framework

Feature	AB 2777 Window	AB 250 Window
Statutory basis	CCP § 340.16(e)(1) – (e)(6)	CCP § 340.16(e)(7)
Revival period	Jan 1, 2023 – Dec 31, 2026	Jan 1, 2026 – Dec 31, 2027
Assault occurrence date requirement	On or after January 1, 2009	No date requirement
Primary defendant focus	Perpetrators, entities, enablers, cover-up participants	Entities engaged in cover-up conduct (plus perpetrators in cover-up cases)
Public entity eligibility	Excluded	Explicitly excluded under § 340.16(e)(7)(C)
Claims previously litigated to finality	Excluded	Excluded
Current status	Closing in 9 months	Actively open through 2027

Many survivor claims will qualify under both frameworks simultaneously. The strategic decision among overlapping windows involves several considerations:

• AB 2777 offers broader defendant targeting — reaches perpetrators and enablers regardless of cover-up conduct, provided the assault occurred on or after January 1, 2009

• AB 250 offers broader time coverage — no date floor on the assault occurrence, allowing revival of older claims where cover-up conduct occurred

• AB 250 requires cover-up proof — plaintiff must establish entity cover-up, which is a substantive evidentiary burden

• Filing under both frameworks simultaneously may be appropriate in cases where cover-up conduct and 2009+ occurrence date both apply, maximizing viable claims

Experienced counsel evaluates each survivor's facts to identify all applicable frameworks and files within the deadline of whichever window closes first.

Institutional Defendants in AB 250 Cases

The AB 250 window's focus on entity cover-up conduct produces a distinctive defendant profile compared to perpetrator-only cases.

Corporate employer defendants. Companies that employed perpetrators and engaged in cover-up conduct — through NDAs imposed on complainants, internal investigations that concluded without action, transfers of known abusers, or retaliation against disclosers — face substantial AB 250 exposure.

The entertainment industry, technology companies, financial services firms, and professional services firms have been central to cover-up civil litigation.

Religious institutions. Dioceses, denominations, and religious organizations that concealed adult sexual assault by clergy or staff members face AB 250 exposure for cover-up conduct. This category overlaps with the childhood sexual abuse institutional liability framework under CCP § 340.11, discussed in our California Childhood Sexual Abuse guide.

Entertainment industry defendants. Production companies, talent agencies, talent management firms, studios, and entertainment industry employers with documented cover-up conduct face AB 250 exposure. The patterns documented in post-2017 #MeToo litigation — executive misconduct concealed through settlements, NDAs, reassignments, and public denials — are directly within the AB 250 definition.

Sports and athletics organizations. National governing bodies, professional sports franchises, university athletics programs, and private sports organizations face AB 250 exposure when adult athlete survivors can establish institutional cover-up. USA Gymnastics, USA Swimming, and similar organizations have been central to this category.

Hospitality and service industries. Hotels, restaurants, hospitality companies, and service industry employers with patterns of executive misconduct or guest assault concealment face AB 250 exposure.

Educational institutions (private). Private universities and colleges that concealed adult sexual assault — whether student-on-student, faculty-on-student, or staff-on-student — face AB 250 exposure. Public universities are excluded from AB 250 revival under § 340.16(e)(7)(C) but may face claims under ordinary § 340.16 or AB 2777.

Damages Framework

Damages in California adult sexual assault cases include the standard personal injury categories with specific applications.

Economic damages include past and future mental health treatment, medication costs, lost earnings where the assault and its consequences affected employment, and career damages where the plaintiff's professional trajectory was affected by the assault or its disclosure.

Economic expert testimony frequently quantifies the damages to career trajectory in cases involving workplace assault.

Non-economic damages include pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, and related psychological harm.

Adult sexual assault cases typically involve substantial non-economic damages given the severe and persistent psychological impact — PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders, relationship and intimacy effects, professional reputation effects — documented through expert testimony.

Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 are available where the defendant's conduct meets the malice, oppression, or fraud standard. Individual perpetrators typically face substantial punitive exposure based on the intentional nature of the assault.

Corporate defendants face punitive exposure under § 3294(b) when corporate knowledge, authorization, or ratification of the misconduct or cover-up is established. Cover-up cases frequently support substantial punitive damages because the intentional concealment conduct directly demonstrates malice or oppression.

MICRA is not applicable in adult sexual assault cases. The MICRA caps under Civil Code § 3333.2 apply only to claims against healthcare providers for professional negligence. Adult sexual assault claims against perpetrators, institutions, and employers are not subject to MICRA limitations.

Establishing Cover-Up Under AB 250

Proving cover-up conduct is central to AB 250 revival. The evidentiary framework typically involves:

Document discovery of institutional records showing awareness of the assault and concealment efforts. NDAs imposed on survivors, internal investigation reports, personnel file entries, email correspondence discussing concealment, and settlement agreements with confidentiality provisions all support cover-up claims. Early and aggressive discovery is essential because these records may be subject to litigation holds that institutional defendants may not fully respect.

Witness testimony from other employees, executives, investigators, or third parties with knowledge of the concealment. Former HR personnel, former in-house counsel, former executives, and other insiders frequently provide testimony establishing the concerted concealment effort.

Pattern evidence across multiple victims or multiple incidents. Cover-up cases often involve serial perpetrators whose conduct affected multiple victims, with institutional responses that concealed each successive incident. Pattern evidence establishes the "concerted effort" required by the statute.

External corroboration through journalism reports, regulatory investigations, government inquiries, or other external disclosures that document the concealment. The post-2017 #MeToo disclosure wave produced substantial documentary records of institutional cover-up that support civil litigation.

Public statements — statements denying the conduct, denying awareness of risk, or minimizing the severity of allegations — that can be contrasted with contemporaneous internal records to establish the cover-up intent.

The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies. Plaintiffs establish cover-up by showing it is more likely than not that the entity engaged in a concerted effort to hide evidence relating to the sexual assault.

Filing Strategy in 2026

Survivors evaluating potential claims in 2026 face specific strategic considerations:

Identify the applicable window. Many claims qualify under both AB 2777 and AB 250. Counsel evaluates the facts to determine all applicable windows and files within the earliest-closing window's deadline.

Preserve evidence immediately. Institutional documents related to the assault, the complaint, the investigation, any settlement or severance, and any subsequent employment action are vulnerable to destruction or alteration.

Preservation letters should go out promptly to all potentially liable entities and to their current and former counsel.

Identify relevant witnesses. Former employees, former investigators, former HR personnel, and former executives with knowledge of the concealment are the most valuable witnesses. Early identification and outreach preserve the ability to obtain testimony.

Coordinate with therapeutic care. Psychological injury is central to the proof of damages. Ongoing therapeutic care during the litigation supports the damages case and provides the personal support essential for prolonged litigation.

Consider AB 250 public entity exclusion. If the primary cover-up defendant is a public entity (state university, public school system, state agency), AB 250 revival is not available. In such cases, AB 2777 (if the assault occurred on or after January 1, 2009) or the ordinary § 340.16 statute (if still running) may provide the filing pathway.

Evaluate bankruptcy exposure of institutional defendants. Some large defendants facing substantial sexual assault civil exposure may pursue bankruptcy reorganization. Counsel monitors bankruptcy risk and coordinates filing strategy to preserve claims.

Understand mandatory reporting obligations. When the alleged perpetrator remains active and potentially has ongoing access to potential victims, mandatory reporting obligations under California law may apply to certain professionals. Counsel coordinates with any mandatory reporting obligations while preserving the civil litigation posture.

Evaluate confidentiality and privacy protection. California provides specific protections for adult sexual assault plaintiffs, including the right to proceed under a pseudonym in appropriate cases under CCP § 367.3. Counsel evaluates the strategic considerations involved in pseudonym filing versus named filing.

What to Do If You Are Considering an Adult Sexual Assault Claim in 2026

Identify when the assault occurred and whether it falls within the AB 2777 (post-2009 conduct) or AB 250 (no date requirement) framework.

Identify the institutional context — employer, religious organization, educational institution, entertainment employer, sports organization, or other — and evaluate whether cover-up conduct occurred.

Document the survivor's personal record of the assault, disclosure (or non-disclosure), and psychological consequences. Contemporaneous journal entries, medical records, therapy records, and communications with witnesses support the case.

Identify any documentation of the institutional response — written complaints to HR, investigation outcomes, severance or settlement documents, NDAs signed, personnel actions, and any subsequent institutional communications.

Preserve electronic evidence including emails, text messages, and social media communications with the perpetrator, with the institutional response, and with other witnesses or victims.

Consult with specialized sexual assault civil litigation counsel early. The revival window framework is technical and time-sensitive. Early consultation preserves the ability to file within the applicable window.

Consider public disclosure strategy. Some survivors benefit from coordinated public disclosure alongside civil filing. Others prefer pseudonymous filing and confidential proceedings. The strategic decision depends on the survivor's personal circumstances, the institutional defendant's anticipated response, and the case's broader public interest.

Coordinate with other victims when pattern cases exist. Serial perpetrators frequently produce multiple civil claims. Coordination among plaintiffs — whether through multi-plaintiff complaints, coordinated JCCP proceedings, or parallel independent filings — can increase litigation leverage and evidentiary development.

Understand the litigation timeline. Adult sexual assault civil cases typically require 18–36 months from filing to resolution. Revival window cases may face enhanced procedural defenses (challenges to revival window eligibility, cover-up proof challenges, statute of limitations challenges) before the substantive case proceeds. Patient coordination with the survivor's ongoing recovery and professional needs is essential.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the current statute of limitations for adult sexual assault civil claims in California? The baseline under CCP § 340.16(a) is the later of ten years from the occurrence or three years from the date the plaintiff discovered the injury resulted from the assault. Two additional revival windows are currently active: the AB 2777 window (closing December 31, 2026) for assaults occurring on or after January 1, 2009, and the AB 250 window (open through December 31, 2027) for claims against entities that engaged in cover-up conduct.

When does the AB 2777 revival window close? December 31, 2026 — approximately nine months from this publication date. Survivors whose claims fall within AB 2777 eligibility (assault on or after January 1, 2009, claim time-barred as of January 1, 2023) have limited remaining time to file.

When does the AB 250 revival window close? December 31, 2027. The window opened January 1, 2026 and remains active throughout 2026 and 2027 for claims against entities that engaged in cover-up conduct.

What constitutes "cover-up" under AB 250? The statute defines 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."

The definition covers institutional concealment through NDAs, settlement confidentiality, suppression of internal investigations, alteration of personnel records, retaliation against disclosers, transfer of known perpetrators, and public misrepresentation.

Can I sue a public university or government agency under AB 250? No. CCP § 340.16(e)(7)(C) explicitly excludes public entities from the AB 250 revival window. The exclusion covers the State of California, UC Regents, county and municipal governments, public school districts, and other governmental entities. Claims against public entity defendants proceed only under the ordinary CCP § 340.16 statute of limitations or the AB 2777 window, where applicable.

Can I file under both AB 2777 and AB 250? Yes, where the facts qualify under both frameworks. Many claims involve post-2009 conduct against entities that engaged in a cover-up, qualifying under both windows. Filing under both frameworks protects against the risk that a procedural defense succeeds against one framework while the other survives.

Are damages capped under the revival windows? No. The ordinary California personal injury damages framework applies. Economic damages (medical expenses, lost earnings, career damages), non-economic damages (pain, suffering, emotional distress), and punitive damages where § 3294 elements are met are all recoverable. MICRA caps do not apply to adult sexual assault claims.

DISCLOSURE 

This page is published and maintained by 1000Attorneys.com, a California State Bar Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service, LRIS Certificate No. 0128, accredited by the American Bar Association and established in 2005. The information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. 1000Attorneys.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. For legal advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified California attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your claim arises.