State’s Top Court Revives Child Sex-Abuse Case Against LAPD
|
By: Itir Yakar The California Supreme Court on Wednesday revived a three-year-old lawsuit filed against the Los Angeles Police Department by two former youth scouts who claim they were molested in the 1970s by an officer who was later in the running to become police chief. The lawsuit accuses David J. Kalish, who later became the highest ranking openly gay member of the police force, of molesting two boys between 1974 and 1979. Two lower courts ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long, and dismissed the case. The case has implications for an unfolding sexual-abuse scandal involving the Los Angeles Archdiocese, which faces 550 cases accusing priests of child molestation, many of them involving incidents from decades ago. The state's high court unanimously agreed to review the abuse case against Kalish after the 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded in February that Los Angeles trial judge Robert L. Hess did not abuse his discretion when he dismissed the case. Under California law, victims of childhood sexual abuse must bring their claims against employers of molesters by age 26, unless they can prove that the employer knew the abuse was taking place and failed to stop it. The plaintiffs contend that Kalish abused them during the Police Department's Scout and Explorer programs and that Kalish routinely offered boys beer during activities that involved painting and landscaping his house. The 2nd District justices said they were not satisfied that the Police Department knew of the abuse. "[W]e conclude that to plead constructive knowledge properly under (the statute of limitations), appellants may not merely allege that respondents knew facts that raised a generalized prospect or possibility of sexual abuse by Kalish," Justice Daniel A. Curry wrote the panel. "In our view, (the plaintiffs') allegations do not establish the requisite constructive knowledge," he wrote. Doe v. City of Los Angeles, 137 Cal. App. 4th 438 (2006). David M. Ring, a partner at Taylor & Ring in Los Angeles who represented the Doe plaintiffs, was pleased Wednesday to hear the high court agreed to review the 2nd District ruling. "I'm very happy for the plaintiffs John Does 1 and 2 involved in the case, because they were very disappointed that they didn't even get an opportunity to prove their case in the trial court," Ring said. Ring said his clients are among thousands of victims who filed suits against molesters in 2003 after the state Legislature made an exception to the statute of limitations in light of the Los Angeles Archdiocese sex-abuse scandal. Under the safe harbor provision, Ring said, the victims were allowed to file suit during 2003 even if the statute of limitations has expired. "The case is extremely significant because it could impact thousands of other cases that are pending in California courts," Ring said. "It could have a real positive effect on thousands of victims of sexual abuse." Lee W. Potts in the Hennigan Bennett & Dorman attorney who, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, asked the high court to add the 2nd District ruling to the annals of published case law after it was initially unpublished. Wednesday's grant of review by the high court automatically makes the ruling off-limits to be cited as precedent. Potts said the 2nd District ruling was the first time appellate courts have interpreted the statute of limitations and set the standards. Potts said the church did not take a position on the merits of the ruling. There are 550 child molestation cases brought against the archdiocese, and the church has fought to deny access to its personnel files. |
