What is the statute of limitations for sexual assault in California as of 2025?
Executive summary
As of 2025, California’s civil statute of limitations for sexual assault by an adult victim is generally 10 years from the last act or attempted act under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.16, while childhood sexual‑abuse civil claims have been effectively stripped of a time bar for offenses occurring on or after January 1, 2024, under section 340.1; separately, the state has also created limited “revival” windows and enacted criminal‑law changes that affect when prosecutors may bring charges [1] [2] [3]. These changes create a patchwork of rules—different timelines for adult civil claims, no civil limitation for many childhood abuse claims, revival windows for time‑barred adult claims tied to cover‑ups, and expanded criminal filing authority for certain sex felonies—each carrying statutory exceptions and political controversy [4] [5] [6].
1. Civil suits by adult survivors: the 10‑year default
For a plaintiff who was 18 or older when assaulted, California law in 2025 generally requires a civil suit for damages to be brought within 10 years from the date of the last act, attempted act, or assault with intent to commit the act—codified in Code of Civil Procedure § 340.16 and explained in legislative analyses and firm advisories [1] [2]. That 10‑year rule is the baseline; other statutory provisions can pause or extend the clock in limited circumstances, but the primary default for adult civil claims reported in the legislative analysis and legal commentary is 10 years [1] [2].
2. Childhood sexual‑abuse civil claims: no limitation for many post‑2023 claims
California moved aggressively to remove time bars for many childhood sexual‑abuse civil claims: the current version of CCP § 340.1, as described by legal commentators, eliminates the statute of limitations for childhood sexual assault claims that occurred on or after January 1, 2024, effectively allowing such claims to be filed at any time [3] [7]. Earlier reforms (including AB 218 and subsequent measures) had already expanded windows and discovery‑based rules for older victims, but by 2024–2025 the statutory framework for childhood claims is materially different from adult civil claims [7].
3. Revival windows and AB 250: limited opportunities for previously time‑barred adult claims
California lawmakers have also created temporary revival mechanisms to permit lawsuits that were previously barred: AB 250 extends eligibility for the revival regime and establishes a targeted two‑year filing window (described in legislative text and law‑firm summaries) allowing adult survivors to sue time‑barred claims tied to alleged institutional “cover‑ups” between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027, while excluding some public entities from that relief [4] [5] [3]. Earlier revival measures—AB 2777 and related provisions—created shorter revival windows that have specific cutoff dates and scope limits [1].
4. Criminal statutes and prosecutorial timing: elimination and limits
On the criminal side, California has been repealing or extending statutes of limitation for many sexual felonies: legislative changes through 2024–2025 (notably amendments to Penal Code § 801.1) allow prosecutors broader authority to commence felony sex prosecutions—including rape and continuous sexual abuse of a child—beyond prior time limits for offenses committed on or after specified dates [6]. National commentary cautions that retroactive extensions of criminal time bars face constitutional constraints (ex post facto), a point noted in legal literature reviewing recent state reforms [8].
5. Political context, contested claims, and practical caveats
These statutory shifts are politically charged: proponents frame them as removing “cruel and arbitrary” barriers to justice for survivors, while critics and some legal observers warn about potential abuse, litigation spikes, and allegations of fraudulent claims—concerns that surfaced in reporting about high‑profile Los Angeles settlements and law‑firm conduct [3]. The statutory text and analyses show many carve‑outs (such as exclusions for public entities and requirements that a plaintiff allege an entity “cover‑up” to invoke revival relief), underscoring that eligibility turns on precise timing, facts, and statutes cited in the legislative history [4] [5] [1]. Reporting and source material used here do not provide a comprehensive advisory for any individual case; for case‑specific advice the statutes and official legislative texts must be consulted directly [4].