A California appeals panel has ruled a new state law extends the statute of limitations for sexual battery suits, in a case involving a group of women whose suits alleged they were molested at Massage Envy spas, but which had been dismissed because they were filed late.
The July 27 decision was penned by Associate Justice Marla Miller, with concurrence from Presiding Justice Therese Stewart and Associate Justice James Richman, of California First District Appellate Court in San Francisco. The decision went against several Massage Envy franchisees. Massage Envy is a chain of massage spas headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.
In 2019 in San Mateo County Superior Court, a group of 18 women — identified as "Jane Does" — filed three suits between them against Massage Envy and some of its franchisees, alleging they had been sexually assaulted between 2003 and 2014 by therapists at several Massage Envy spas in California. According to plaintiffs, the defendants allegedly were aware assaults were taking place, but took no action except to allegedly try to cover it up.
Plaintiffs listed nine allegations, including sexual battery, negligence and fraud.
Judge Marie Weiner dismissed the suits, finding the relevant statutes of limitations, the longest of which was four years, had expired before the suits were lodged.
On appeal, plaintiffs did not include their suits against Massage Envy, only the ones against its franchisees.
Plaintiffs argued state law allowed for the revival of sexual battery claims made by adults, which would otherwise be barred by statutes of limitations, unless such cases have been litigated to a finish or ended in a settlement before Jan. 1, 2023. Suits that qualify may be filed until Dec. 31, 2026. Plaintiffs asserted they fell under that category.
Defendants acknowledged the statute of limitations for plaintiffs' battery claims are extended per the law. Defendants maintained the other claims, such as for fraud, remain barred.
Associate Justice Miller was not persuaded by defendants, determining the law covers not only direct sexual battery claims, but also any claims arising from alleged sexual battery. Miller quoted the law's language as saying the law applies to "any civil action for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual assault."
Miller noted at least some of the claims can continue, but it will be up to a San Mateo Superior Court judge to hash out which ones, because neither party addressed how the law applies to each claim.
Plaintiffs also contended a cover-up was undertaken by defendants, which, under the law, also extends the statute of limitations. However, Miller concluded plaintiffs did not go into enough detail for her to decide whether there was enough substance to the cover-up allegations. Miller likewise ruled Superior Court needed to determine the issue.
Miller pointed out the lack of the elaboration by both parties was not their fault, because the law in question was enacted in September 2022, while the appeal was already underway.
In light of her rulings, Miller sent the matter back to Superior Court to give plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints and for defendants to make further arguments.
Plaintiffs have been represented by: Thompson Law Offices, of Burlingame, Calif.; Law Office of Valerie T. McGinty, of San Mateo; Laffey, Bucci & Kent, of Philadelphia; and ADZ Law, of San Mateo.
The various defendants have been represented by: Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, of Los Angeles and San Francisco; Stone & Associates, of Walnut Creek; CMBG3 Law, of Boston; Chapman, Glucksman, Dean & Roeb, of Boston; and Gordon, Rees, Scully, Mansukhani, of San Francisco.
Also on the defense side are: Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara, of Newport Beach, Calif.; Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, of Los Angeles; and Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz, of Santa Rosa.