Title: Doe v. City of Los Angeles
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S142546
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2007

1
Filed 11/1/07 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
JOHN DOE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S142546 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 2/4 B178689 
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., 
) 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
Defendants and Appellants. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. BC293484 
___________________________________ ) 
 
) 
JOHN DOE 2, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
Los Angeles County 
 
v. 
)  
Super. Ct. No. BC308146 
 
 
) 
 
CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., 
) 
 
) 
 
 
Defendants and Appellants. 
) 
 
___________________________________ ) 
 
 
Code of Civil Procedure section 340.1, which extends the statute of 
limitations within which a victim of childhood sexual abuse may sue a person or 
entity who did not perpetrate the abuse but was a legal cause of it, requires that 
such actions be brought before the victim’s 26th birthday, unless the defendant 
“knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual 
conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take 
reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of 
 
 
2
unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person . . . .”  (Code Civ. Proc., 
§ 340.1, subd. (b)(2).) 
Plaintiffs, John Doe and John Doe 2, now in their 40’s, sued the City of Los 
Angeles and the Boy Scouts of America alleging they had been sexually abused by 
David Kalish, a police officer, while they were participants in the Los Angeles 
Police Department Explorer Scout Program in the 1970’s.1  The superior court 
dismissed their actions on the ground that the statute of limitations had lapsed 
because plaintiffs failed to adequately plead that defendants “knew or had reason 
to know, or [were] otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct” by 
Kalish.  The Court of Appeal affirmed. 
We granted review to examine whether the pleadings in these cases are 
sufficient to invoke the extended statute of limitations set forth in subdivision 
(b)(2).  We conclude that subdivision (b)(2) is a remedial statute that the 
Legislature intended to be construed broadly to effectuate the intent that 
illuminates section 340.1 as a whole; to expand the ability of victims of childhood 
sexual abuse to hold to account individuals and entities responsible for their 
injuries.  This principle of broad construction is not consistent with language in the 
opinion of the Court of Appeal below that imposed heightened pleading 
requirements on plaintiffs seeking to bring their actions within this expansion of 
the statute of limitations in childhood sexual abuse cases.  However, even without 
the stringent pleading requirements imposed by the Court of Appeal, we agree 
                                              
1  We shall refer to plaintiffs as Doe 1 and Doe 2 or, collectively, plaintiffs; to the 
City of Los Angeles as the City; to the Boy Scouts of America as BSA; to the Los 
Angeles Police Department as LAPD, and; to David Kalish as Kalish.  All further 
unspecified statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure; section 340.1, 
subdivisions (b)(2) and (c) are referred to as subdivision (b)(2) or subdivision (c). 
 
 
3
with its conclusion that the statute requires more specific allegations than were 
made by plaintiffs in this case.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court 
of Appeal. 
I.  FACTS 
A.  Doe 1’s Complaint 
Doe 1’s operative pleading is his fourth amended complaint.  He alleges that 
Kalish sexually abused him “between approximately 1974 through 1979” when he 
was under 18 years old and a participant in the “Law Enforcement Explorer Scout 
program” at LAPD’s Devonshire division.  Kalish, who was a supervisor of that 
program and allegedly used his position as supervisor to molest Doe 1, is not a 
party to this appeal.  The complaint further alleges causes of action against the 
City, BSA, and “Law Enforcement Explorer Post 522” for negligent vetting, 
supervision, training and retention of Kalish, negligent supervision and 
management of the Explorer Scout program, negligent failure to warn and 
negligent failure to supervise and protect Doe 1.2 
Doe 1 alleges that he first met Kalish while Doe 1 was a participant in the 
Deputy Auxiliary Police (DAP) program at LAPD’s Devonshire division.  The 
DAP program was sponsored by the police department and provided social and 
athletic activities to at-risk children between the ages of 12 and 14.  According to 
Doe 1, it was common knowledge among LAPD officers that Kalish sought out 
and befriended boys in the DAP program who “bec[a]me his eventual victims.”  
Kalish encouraged some of these boys to join the Explorer Scout program after 
                                              
2  The City pointed out in its demurrer that Law Enforcement Explorer Post 522 
has no separate existence and no legal identity apart from the City itself and is 
therefore a “nonsuable entity.” 
 
 
4
they completed the DAP program “so that he could have further access to them in 
subsequent years.”  Doe 1 joined the Devonshire Explorer Scout program in 1975, 
when he was 14 years old, and remained a participant until sometime in 1979, 
when he was 17. 
The Explorer Scout program was sponsored by BSA and LAPD.  On 
information and belief, Doe 1 alleges that BSA required law enforcement agencies 
like LAPD to comply with guidelines that, among other things, required proper 
vetting and supervision of adult leaders, prohibited fraternization between the 
adult leaders and scouts outside of sanctioned events and also prohibited one-on-
one contact between adult leaders and scouts.  The Explorer Scout program at 
Devonshire was supervised by a lieutenant who was the designated community 
relations officer.  The lieutenant, in turn, reported to a captain.  While the 
community relations officer exercised supervision and oversight, advisors like 
Kalish dealt directly with the participants. 
Doe 1 alleges that a number of unqualified officers, including Kalish, were 
involved in the Devonshire Explorer Scout program.  Doe 1 also alleges that 
Explorer Scouts were used for activities of questionable value to the community 
such as refurbishing Kalish’s home.  In exchange, Explorer Scouts, including Doe 
1, were given beer, though none was old enough to drink alcohol legally. 
Doe 1 alleges that Kalish was a pedophile and a friend of Vince Pirelli, a 
known pornographer who specialized in pornographic movies featuring boys.  
According to Doe 1, Pirelli was present at Kalish’s house at the same time as some 
of the Explorer Scouts, and Kalish pressured Doe 1 to participate in Pirelli’s 
pornographic movies.  Another of Kalish’s victims was also pressured into making 
pornographic movies for Pirelli.  On information and belief, Doe 1 alleges that 
Kalish filmed sexual encounters at his home with victims other than Doe 1 and 
 
 
5
had a preference for “young slight blond boys,” a description that fit at least two of 
his victims from the Explorer Scout program. 
Doe 1 alleges on information and belief that it was “commonly known” that 
Kalish invited Explorer Scouts into his home outside of sanctioned program events 
and activities.  Kalish would pick up plaintiff and other Explorer Scouts, at least 
one of whom Kalish also sexually abused, and drive them to his house. There, he 
allowed Explorer Scouts to drink and watch pornography.  On one occasion, a boy 
who had been drinking at Kalish’s house became drunk and was involved in a 
traffic incident that resulted in a police report. 
Kalish also drank with some of his victims in the parking lot of Devonshire 
station after his victims had completed their evening shift at the Communications 
Division.  On one occasion, Kalish became intoxicated and asked another victim, 
who was an unlicensed 15 year old, to drive him home.  Kalish took the same boy 
to the police academy to watch Kalish complete his monthly firearm qualification, 
and then bought his victim gifts at the police academy gift shop.  At other times, 
he took the boy to the police academy to play racquetball or jog, after which they 
showered together, and then Kalish would take the boy home at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.  
Kalish showed favoritism to this boy and others, including Doe 1, by buying them 
LAPD jackets and shirts, some of which were unavailable to the public, and 
openly giving them these gifts at Devonshire station.  He also showed favoritism 
by providing “additional ride-alongs, ride-alongs in the downtown patrol division, 
and commendations.” 
Doe 1 alleges that other police officers from Devonshire station participated 
in unauthorized activities and trips with Kalish and Explorer Scouts.  Additionally, 
it was “commonly known” that Kalish traveled to Thailand which is “a known 
haven for pedophiles.”  Doe 1 alleges on information and belief that, on one of 
these trips, other LAPD officers observed Kalish with a young Thai boy. 
 
 
6
Doe 1 alleges that on one occasion Kalish molested him at a sanctioned 
Explorer Scout activity and on another occasion as Kalish was driving Doe 1 
home from a sanctioned activity.  A third incident occurred at Doe 1’s home.  Doe 
1 was afraid of what would happen to his Explorer Scout career and his hope to 
become a police officer if he resisted Kalish.  Additionally, Kalish had threatened 
at least one other victim to keep him silent and constantly asked whether that 
victim had confided in anyone. 
On information and belief, Doe 1 alleges that nationwide there have been at 
least 31 reported incidents of the sexual abuse of Explorer Scouts by police 
officers participating in the Explorer Scout program.  With respect to the 
Devonshire program, Doe 1 alleges that, prior to the incidents involving Kalish, 
there were “other instances of misconduct . . . between Advisors and Scouts 
involving drinking and sexual fraternization” that should have put those in charge 
of the program on notice of the need to make changes to protect the scouts against 
sexual exploitation.  He alleges further that “other LAPD officers viewed the 
Explorer/Scout program as a ‘time bomb’ because of lax supervision and 
inadequate oversight, the nature of the program, and other known incidents of 
improper fraternization between officers and scouts.” 
Based on Kalish’s improper conduct with scouts including unauthorized 
fraternization, favoritism and engaging in prohibited one-on-one contact with 
targeted scouts, “[d]efendants and each of them knew or should have known that 
Kalish presented a risk of sexual exploitation to boys in the Devonshire 
Explorer/Scout program. . . .  [¶]  Defendants and each of them further knew or 
should have known that Kalish had a friendship and/or business interests with 
known pornographer Vince Pirelli, and that Kalish traveled on more than one 
occasion to Thailand, both of which should have prompted immediate inquiry as 
 
 
7
the nature of those friendships and trips posed a risk to the young boys in the 
Explorer/Scouts.” 
B.  Doe 2’s Complaint 
Doe 2’s operative pleading is his first amended complaint.  It contains the 
same causes of action alleged in Doe 1’s fourth amended complaint against the 
same defendants and its allegations closely track those made in Doe 1’s complaint.  
Like Doe 1, Doe 2 alleges that he was molested by Kalish between 1974 and 1979 
while he was a participant in the Explorer Scout program.  The complaint also 
identifies Doe 2 as the other victim referred to in Doe 1’s complaint whom Kalish 
allegedly had drive him home because Kalish was too intoxicated to drive and 
whom Kalish took to the police academy to watch Kalish complete his monthly 
firearm qualifications and to play racquetball and jog. 
Doe 2’s complaint contains additional allegations regarding defendants’ 
knowledge.  Doe alleges that “BSA knew and the LAPD should have known, prior 
to the incidents complained of here, that pedophiles were active in its organization 
and the programs it sponsored.”  Additionally, Doe 2 alleges on information and 
belief that “since the early part of the last century — the BSA has maintained 
‘Confidential Files’ on questionable scout leaders, including those suspected of 
child molestation.”  The complaint further alleges that since 1971, “more than half 
of all leaders placed in the Confidential Files have been put there for child abuse,” 
and these statistics “represent only a small number of the suspected pedophiles in 
the BSA organization.”  Doe 2 alleges that prior to his molestation by Kalish, 
“numerous adults in BSA programs, were investigated, arrested and/or tried for 
child sexual abuse.”  He alleges further that statistics maintained by BSA since 
1980 show “more than one incident of sexual abuse per week for the past two 
decades involving scouts and scout leaders, that is, more than 1000 reported 
 
 
8
incidents since 1980.”  He alleges that BSA knew or had reason to know of 
comparable numbers of sexual abuse occurring before 1980. 
Doe 2 alleges that LAPD and BSA knew or should have known that, prior to 
Kalish’s molestation of Doe 2, “sexual exploitation and sexual abuse of Explorer 
Scouts had occurred in its Hollywood and Devonshire programs.”  Specifically, 
Doe 2 alleges that “in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s . . . Defendant LAPD knew 
and Defendant BSA should have known of the following: a) that a police officer 
was having sex with an Explorer Scout in the Hollywood Division’s Explorer 
Scout Program[;] b) that another two police officers were having sex with a 
different Explorer Scout in the Hollywood Division’s Explorer Scout Program; 
and c) that another police officer had sex with an Explorer Scout in the Devonshire 
Division’s Explorer Scout Program while on a sanctioned scout camping trip and 
got her pregnant.” 
Accordingly, Doe 2 alleges on information and belief that defendants “knew 
or should have known, prior to the incidents complained of here, that numerous 
incidents of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation occurred in BSA-sponsored 
programs and in the LAPD Explorer Scout program; that pedophiles were active in 
the BSA organization and the programs it sponsored; that the subject Explorer 
Scout program is a program of such nature so as to create an especial risk of 
sexual exploitation and sexual abuse to the minor scouts participating in them; that 
pedophiles seduce their victims in ways similar to that of adults; and that training, 
education, warnings and supervision would prevent or at least minimize the 
likelihood of sexual exploitation and abuse.” 
C.  The Demurrers 
Both the City and BSA demurred to the plaintiffs’ operative complaints.  As 
relevant here, BSA argued that the complaints were barred by the statute of 
limitations, which ordinarily precludes an action against a nonperpetrator 
 
 
9
defendant after the plaintiff’s 26th birthday.  BSA acknowledged that section 
340.1, subdivisions (b) and (c) revived such actions against a nonperpetrator 
defendant for a one-year period, but argued that plaintiffs had failed to comply 
with the statute’s knowledge or notice requirements because they had not pled 
“that Boy Scouts of America knew or had reason to know in advance of unlawful 
sexual conduct by Kalish and that he was an employee, volunteer, representative, 
or agent.”  The City also cited plaintiffs’ failure to sufficiently allege knowledge 
or notice as a ground for its demurrers. 
The trial court agreed with the defendants and sustained the demurrers 
without leave to amend. 
D.  The Court of Appeal’s Opinion 
Plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs’ claims were 
time barred because plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead that their actions fell 
within subdivision (b)(2).  Because plaintiffs had conceded they were unable to 
plead that defendants had actual knowledge of Kalish’s proclivity for the sexual 
abuse of minors, the Court of Appeal focused on the sufficiency of the allegations 
of constructive knowledge.  For purposes of the statute, the Court of Appeal 
defined constructive knowledge in the language of Civil Code section 19, which 
states:  “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances sufficient to put a 
prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has constructive notice of the fact 
itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such inquiry, he might have learned 
such fact.” 
Characterizing subdivision (b)(2) as a defense to the statute of limitations, the 
Court of Appeal stated that plaintiffs were required “to plead specific facts 
sufficient to bring their actions within subdivision (b)(2).”  “The key issue, 
therefore, concerns the nature of the specific facts that appellants were required to 
allege to invoke the defense provided by subdivision (b)(2).  This poses a question 
 
 
10
of law, namely, the proper interpretation of a statute.”  As an exception to the 
statute of limitations, the Court of Appeal concluded that subdivision (b)(2) should 
be narrowly construed.  “[T]his provision demands awareness — actual or 
constructive — that the particular individual who is the target of the action 
committed sexual abuse, and this awareness must be sufficiently firm to warrant 
removing that individual from contact with children.”  The Court of Appeal 
concluded further that subdivision (b)(2) “imposes more stringent demands on 
constructive knowledge than the concept of forseeability ordinarily applicable to 
negligence claims.”  Thus, “appellants may not merely allege that respondents 
knew facts that raised a generalized prospect or possibility of sexual abuse by 
Kalish.  Rather, appellants were obliged to allege in specific terms that 
respondents knew facts that — if acted upon in a reasonable manner — would 
have prompted them to investigate Kalish with a thoroughness likely to establish 
that he had engaged in unlawful sexual abuse.”  
Applying this standard to plaintiffs’ complaints, the Court of Appeal held 
that they failed to establish the requisite constructive knowledge.  The reviewing 
court stated that the bulk of material allegations “are improperly pled on 
information and belief.”  The Court of Appeal acknowledged the principle that 
allegations on information and belief are proper where the allegations involve 
matters peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendants.  Here, however, it 
found that, to the extent certain allegations were purportedly commonly known, 
they were not peculiarly within the knowledge of defendants.  Other information 
and belief allegations, involving facts that may have been peculiarly within the 
knowledge of defendants, were improperly pled because they were “unsupported 
by any ‘statement of the facts upon which the belief is founded.’ ”  Regarding 
allegations not founded on information and belief, the Court of Appeal stated that 
they did no more than “reasonably support the conclusion that LAPD should have 
 
 
11
made a general inquiry into alcohol- and chore-related misconduct by LAPD 
officers within the programs, but not that LAPD should have launched an 
investigation focused on Kalish that would have uncovered his sexual 
misconduct.” 
The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ action.  We granted 
review. 
II.  ANALYSIS 
Because Does 1 and 2 filed their actions against the City and BSA after their 
26th birthdays, their actions are barred by the statute of limitations unless they can 
plead that defendants “knew or had reason to know, or [were] otherwise on 
notice,” that Kalish had engaged in “unlawful sexual conduct” and failed “to take 
reasonable steps, and to implement . . . safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful 
sexual conduct in the future” by Kalish.  (Subd. (b)(2).)3  The question here is 
what the Legislature meant by this statutory language and whether, in light of that 
meaning, plaintiffs adequately alleged that defendants had knowledge or notice 
that Kalish had engaged in past unlawful sexual conduct with minors prior to his 
alleged abuse of them.  Because this appeal arises from a judgment of dismissal 
following the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend,  we “ ‘give[] the 
complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treat[] the demurrer as admitting all 
                                              
3  We do not separately discuss whether plaintiffs’ complaints were timely under 
the one-year revival of the statute of limitations set forth in subdivision (c).  
Subdivision (c) revives only such actions that are “permitted to be filed pursuant 
to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b)” (subd. (c)).  Therefore, if plaintiffs’ 
complaints were properly dismissed because they were unable to meet the 
knowledge or notice requirements of subdivision (b)(2), then whether their actions 
were timely under subdivision (c) is moot. 
 
 
12
material facts properly pleaded.’ ”  (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 
Cal.4th 797, 810, quoting Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 
966-967.) 
A.  The Purpose and Scope of  Subdivision (b)(2) 
In construing statutory language our objective is to determine and effectuate 
the Legislature’s intent.  (People v. Yartz (2005) 37 Cal.4th 529, 537.)  Such 
language, however, is construed in the context of the entire law.  “Courts properly 
examine the manifest purpose of the statute as a whole in interpreting its 
provisions.  [Citations.]  We examine the history and the background of the 
statutory provision in order to ascertain the most reasonable interpretation of the 
measure.”  (Hellinger v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1056-
1057.) 
In Aaronoff v. Martinez-Senftner (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 910,  the court 
observed that the purpose of subdivision (b)(2) is to target “third party defendants 
who, by virtue of certain specified relationships to the perpetrator (i.e., employee, 
volunteer, representative, or agent), could have employed safeguards to prevent 
the sexual assault.  It requires the sexual conduct to have arisen through an 
exploitation of a relationship over which the third party has some control.”  
(Aaronoff, at p. 921.)  The language of the provision expressly supports this 
characterization.  (California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Rialto Unified 
School Dist.  (1997) 14 Cal.4th 627, 632 [“In interpreting statutes, we follow the 
Legislature’s intent, as exhibited by the plain meaning of the actual words of the 
law . . . .”].)  Subdivision (b)(2) extends past a plaintiff’s 26th birthday claims 
against a nonperpetrator defendant who is or was in a specified relationship with 
the perpetrator — “employee, volunteer, representative, or agent” — and who, 
“knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice” of the perpetrator’s 
“unlawful sexual conduct” and “failed to take” preventative measures to “avoid 
 
 
13
acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future” by that perpetrator.  The statute’s 
enumeration of the necessary relationship between the nonperpetrator defendant 
and the perpetrator implies that the former was in a position to exercise some 
control over the latter. 
This interpretation of the statute is also confirmed by a review of the relevant 
legislative history of  Senate Bill No. 1779 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill No. 
1779), which added subdivision (b)(2).4  (Barratt American, Inc. v. City of Rancho 
Cucamonga (2005) 37 Cal.4th 685, 697 [“Although the plain language of the 
statutes dictates the result here [citation], legislative history provides additional 
authority”].)  “[Senate Bill No. 1779] is intended to ensure that victims severely 
damaged by childhood sexual abuse are able to seek compensation from those 
responsible.  [¶] . . . . [T]his bill provides that the extended statute of limitations in 
childhood sexual abuse cases against a third party extends beyond age 26 of the 
victim, when the third party knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on 
notice, of unlawful sexual conduct by the individual and the third party failed to 
take reasonable steps and to implement reasonable safeguards to avoid future acts 
of unlawful sexual conduct by that individual. . . .  In support of the measure, the 
author states:  [¶]  This bill is essential to ensure that victims severely damaged by 
childhood sexual abuse are able to seek compensation from those responsible.  
While current law allows a lawsuit to be brought against a perpetrator within three 
                                              
4  Plaintiffs, BSA and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles have all 
asked that we take judicial notice of the legislative history of Senate Bill No. 1779.  
“Because the [legislative history] materials are relevant to a material issue in this 
case, we grant the request.”  (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1135, fn. 
1.)  Plaintiffs also request that we take judicial notice of the Court of Appeal’s file 
in McVeigh v. Doe 1 (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 898, and portions of the legislative 
history of Senate Bill No. 108 (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.).  Plaintiffs fail to 
demonstrate the relevance of this material.  We deny their request. 
 
 
14
years of discovery of the adulthood aftereffects of the childhood abuse, current 
law bars any action against a responsible third party entity (such as an employer, 
sponsoring organization or religious organization) after the victim’s 26th 
birthday. . . .  [¶]  . . . This arbitrary limitation unfairly deprives a victim from 
seeking redress and unfairly and unjustifiably protects responsible third parties 
from being held accountable for their actions that caused injury to victims.”  
(Assem. Floor Analysis of Sen. Bill 1779, as amended June 17, 2002, pp. 3- 4.) 
Clearly then, the Legislature’s goal in enacting subdivision (b)(2) was to 
expand the ability of victims of childhood abuse to sue those responsible for the 
injuries they sustained as a result of that abuse. This reading of subdivision (b)(2) 
is also consistent with the Legislature’s larger purpose in enacting section 340.1, 
the limitations statute of which subdivision (b)(2) is a part.  “The overall goal of 
section 340.1 is to allow victims of childhood sexual abuse a longer time period in 
which to bring suit against their abusers.  [Citation.]  The legislative history makes 
this abundantly clear.  The statute has been amended numerous times since its 
enactment in 1986, to enlarge the period for filing claims “ ‘to hold molesters 
accountable for their behavior so that they are not ‘off the hook’ as soon as their 
victims reach age 21,’ ” [citation] [and] to extend the expanded limitations period 
to actions not just against molesters, but against ‘any person or entity who owed a 
duty of care to the plaintiff, where a wrongful or negligent act by that person or 
entity was a legal cause of the childhood sexual abuse . . . .’  [Citations.]  Each 
time, plaintiffs’ access to the courts was expanded.”  (McVeigh v. Doe 1, supra, 
138 Cal.App.4th at pp. 903-904; see Shirk v. Vista Unified School Dist. (2007) 42 
Cal.4th 201, 207-208) [review of the history of section 340.1 from its original 
enactment in 1986 through its 2002 amendments demonstrates a continual 
expansion and enlargement of the statute in to allow sexual abuse victims to sue 
perpetrators and nonperpetrator defendants].) 
 
 
15
One caveat applies, however — in construing this, or any statute, we may not 
broaden or narrow the scope of the provision by reading into it language that does 
not appear in it or reading out of it language that does.  “Our office . . . ‘is simply 
to ascertain and declare’ what is in the relevant statutes, ‘not to insert what has 
been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.’ ”  (Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. 
Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998) 17 Cal.4th 553, 573.)  “ ‘[A] court . . . may not rewrite 
the statute to conform to an assumed intention which does not appear from its 
language.’ ”  (In re Hoddinott (1996) 12 Cal.4th 992, 1002.) 
With these principles in mind, we turn to subdivision (b)(2).  The words of 
subdivision (b)(2) create three conditions that must be met before it applies to a 
particular case:  (1) the nonperpetrator defendant “knew or had reason to know, or 
was otherwise on notice”; (2) that the perpetrator — “an employee, volunteer, 
representative, or agent” — had engaged in “unlawful sexual conduct”; and (3) 
“failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid 
acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person, including, but not 
limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of that person in a function or 
environment in which contact with children is an inherent part of that function or 
environment.”  Moreover, the “unlawful sexual conduct” refers to the acts 
specified in section 340.1, subdivision (e), which defines “ ‘[c]hildhood sexual 
abuse’ ” in terms of seven provisions of the Penal Code describing various 
prohibited sexual acts against minors. 
 
Although plaintiffs are focused on the words “knew,” “reason to know,” 
and “otherwise on notice” in the statute, it bears emphasizing that these words 
must, of course, be read in the context of the provision as a whole.  Thus, the 
subject of which the nonperpetrator defendant must have had knowledge or notice 
is, the statute clearly tells us, the perpetrator’s unlawful sexual conduct as that 
term is defined in the statute to encompass particular prohibited sexual acts with a 
 
 
16
minor.  As we shall demonstrate, it is the failure of plaintiffs to allege that either 
the City or the BSA had knowledge or notice that Kalish had engaged in past 
unlawful sexual conduct that dooms their complaint.  Bearing this in mind, we 
turn to the knowledge and notice language. 
 
The words “knew,” “reason to know,” and “otherwise on notice” are not 
defined in the statute.  The parties agree that “knew” refers to actual knowledge.  
They agree further that the phrase “reason to know” refers to a species of 
constructive knowledge, but they disagree as to its exact type. 
In their briefing, plaintiffs argued that the phrase imposes a duty of inquiry, a 
view shared by the Court of Appeal, which defined the phrase in the language of 
Civil Code section 19:  “Every person who has actual notice of circumstances 
sufficient to put a prudent man upon inquiry as to a particular fact, has 
constructive notice of the fact itself in all cases in which, by prosecuting such 
inquiry, he might have learned such fact.”  In plaintiffs’ view, the allegations in 
their complaints that defendants were aware of circumstances that, if investigated, 
would have revealed Kalish was a child molester are sufficient to charge 
defendants with constructive knowledge of that fact.  At argument, however, 
plaintiffs appeared to back away from the position and to agree that “reason to 
know” in the statute has the same meaning we ascribed to that term in John B. v 
Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1177, 1191.  (Post, at p. 18.)  They shifted their 
argument regarding the inquiry notice to the “otherwise on notice” language, a 
point we take up momentarily. 
 
BSA, however, maintains that “reason to know” is a form of “presumed 
actual knowledge” where “based on facts defendant actually knew, an inference 
can be drawn that he/she must have realized child abuse was occurring, because a 
reasonable person would have realized this under the circumstances.”  
Accordingly, in BSA’s view, the constructive knowledge requirement in 
 
 
17
subdivision (b)(2) refers not to facts defendants could have discovered upon 
inquiry, but facts they actually knew and from which known facts they could 
reasonably have inferred the ultimate fact of Kalish’s deviant propensities.  
 
We recently had occasion to discuss the meaning of “reason to know.”  
“Under the reason-to-know standard, ‘the actor has information from which a 
person of reasonable intelligence or of the superior intelligence of the actor would 
infer that the fact in question exists, or that such person would govern his conduct 
upon the assumption that such fact exists.’  (Rest.2d Torts, § 12, subd. 1.)  In other 
words, ‘the actor has knowledge of facts from which a reasonable man of ordinary 
intelligence or one of the superior intelligence of the actor would either infer the 
existence of the fact in question or would regard its existence as so highly 
probable that his conduct would be predicated upon the assumption that the fact 
did exist.’  (Id., § 12, com. a, p. 20.)”  (John B. v. Superior Court, supra, 38 
Cal.4th at p. 1191, fn. omitted.) 
 
Thus, contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, and the conclusion of the Court of 
Appeal, the Legislature’s use of a “reason to know” standard is not the same as the 
inquiry notice described in Civil Code section 19.  Rather, in determining whether 
an actor was in possession of the constructive knowledge described by the “reason 
to know” standard, we ask whether, after examining the facts in the actor’s 
possession, a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence — or, in the particular 
circumstance, a person of superior intelligence — would have inferred the 
existence of the ultimate fact at issue or regarded its existence as so highly 
probable as to conduct himself or herself as if it did exist. 
 
Nonetheless, contrary to BSA’s formulation, having a “reason to know” 
something is not the same as actual knowledge.  In light of the Legislature’s 
explicit inclusion of an actual knowledge standard, to construe the “reason to 
know” standard as simply a restatement of actual knowledge impermissibly 
 
 
18
creates surplusage in the statute.  “We must, of course, avoid any construction that 
would create such surplusage.”  (Navellier v. Stetten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 95.)  A 
“reason to know” standard does not require proof that a person must have inferred 
the existence of the ultimate fact but only, under the circumstances described 
above, that a person would have inferred the existence of the ultimate fact or 
would have regarded the existence of the ultimate fact as so highly probable as to 
have behaved in conformity with that belief. 
 
The parties also disagree about the meaning of the phrase “otherwise on 
notice.”  Plaintiffs argue that the phrase, juxtaposed “against actual notice and 
inquiry (i.e. constructive) notice . . . is reasonably interpreted as an even broader 
form of constructive knowledge,” that “encompasses facts and behaviors 
inconsistent with the protection of minors, while not fully rising to the level of 
‘childhood sexual abuse,’ as that term is defined in subdivision (e) of § 340.1.”  
Thus, as plaintiffs made clear at argument, it is their position that “otherwise on 
notice” imposes a duty of inquiry on nonperpetrators triggered when, in the words 
of their brief, the nonperpetrator is in possession of “facts [that] suggest the minor 
was at risk.”  At that point, according to plaintiff, “the policy must be for 
non-perpetrator defendants to have reasonably reacted to that risk and determined 
its nature and scope.”  This position is consistent with their pleadings in which, in 
Doe 1’s complaint, for example, it is alleged that, based on the various types of 
improper conduct by Kalish, that “[d]efendants and each of them knew or should 
have known that Kalish presented a risk of sexual exploitation to boys in the 
Devonshire Explorer/Scout program.”  
 
 
19
 
BSA, by contrast, argues that “otherwise on notice” means imputed actual 
notice — that is, actual knowledge imputed to a principal based on actual or 
constructive knowledge, including both inquiry notice and reason to know, in the 
possession of the principal’s agent. 
 
Because the phrase is admittedly ambiguous, we consult the legislative 
history.  (Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 995, 1003 [“[I]f 
the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may 
consider various extrinsic aids, including . . . the legislative history . . . .”].)  “The 
language ‘or was otherwise on notice’ was added . . . to address a concern that an 
entity might be able to avoid responsibility if a formal complaint had not been 
filed.”  (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as amended June 
6, 2002, p. 10-.)  The apparent purpose of this language was to prevent a 
nonperpetrator defendant from disclaiming knowledge of the unlawful sexual 
conduct of the perpetrator on the grounds that it had not been notified of this 
conduct through a formal complaint process where the evidence demonstrates that 
some other form of notice was provided. 
 
Thus, the legislative history does not support either plaintiffs’ claim that the 
“otherwise on notice” language imposes a duty of inquiry or BSA’s claim that 
what the Legislature intended was imputed actual knowledge.  We need not 
determine the precise contours of the phrase, however, because even if we were to 
assume arguendo that plaintiff’s interpretation is tenable, they have failed to 
satisfy the further requirement that the nonperpetrator defendant have knowledge 
or notice of the perpetrator’s past unlawful sexual conduct.   
 
 
20
 
It is not enough, under the statute, as plaintiffs maintain, that knowledge or 
notice of conduct that does not amount to unlawful sexual conduct is sufficient to 
trigger a duty of inquiry, even if we assume that “otherwise on notice” refers to 
such a duty.  The preliminary reference in subdivision (b)(2) to “unlawful sexual 
conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent,” is clarified by the 
subsequent language regarding the nonperpetrator defendant’s failure to take 
preventative action “to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that 
person, including, but not limited to, preventing or avoiding placement of that 
person” in circumstances involving contact with children.  (Italics added.) 
 
Thus, construing the subdivision as a whole, the knowledge or notice 
requirement refers to knowledge or notice of past unlawful sexual conduct by the 
individual currently accused of other unlawful sexual conduct.  Again, this 
construction of the statute is supported by the legislative history.  In an analysis of 
the policy reasons supporting Senate Bill No. 1779, it was noted: “According to 
the proponents, many of the victims that would be covered under this bill were 
abused for years during their childhood, enduring hundreds of assaults from 
employees or agents that the employer knew or had reason to know had committed 
past unlawful sexual conduct but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent future 
occurrences.”  (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 1779, as 
amended June 6, 2002, p. 9.) 
 
Fairly construed, then, subdivision (b)(2) requires the victim to establish 
that the nonperpetrator defendant had actual knowledge, constructive knowledge 
(as measured by the reason to know standard), or was otherwise on notice that the 
perpetrator had engaged in past unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and, 
possessed of this knowledge or notice, failed to take reasonable preventative steps 
or implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of future unlawful sexual 
conduct by the perpetrator.  
 
 
21
 
B. Are Plaintiffs’ Pleadings Sufficient to Satisfy the Knowledge or Notice 
Requirements of Subdivision (b)(2)? 
 
Preliminarily, the parties disagree as to the level of specificity required of 
plaintiffs’ knowledge and notice pleadings.  Characterizing subdivision (b)(2) as a 
“defense” to the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs must 
allege specific facts, although it did not explain what this entailed.  Defendants 
adopt this position.  Plaintiffs, by contrast, contend that the doctrine of “less 
particularity” applies to the knowledge and notice pleadings.  This doctrine 
provides that “[l]ess particularity [in pleading] is required when it appears that 
defendant has superior knowledge of the facts, so long as the pleading gives notice 
of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.”  (Okun v. Superior 
Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 458.)  Thus, plaintiffs contend that “pleading ultimate 
facts is sufficient since the particularized knowledge lies with the defendant and 
the defendant does not need more information for evaluation of the action brought 
against it.” 
 
We disagree with any implication in the Court of Appeal’s analysis that 
plaintiffs seeking the shelter of subdivision (b)(2) are required to plead 
evidentiary, as opposed to ultimate facts, and may not include allegations based on 
information and belief.  Contrary to the Court of Appeal’s characterization, the 
subdivision is not a defense to a statute of limitations but, as we have observed, an 
expansion of the limitations period, the purpose of which is to expand access to 
the courts by victims of childhood sexual abuse.  (McVeigh v. Doe 1, supra, 138 
Cal.App.4th at pp. 903-904.)  It would be inconsistent with this purpose, or with 
the mandate to broadly construe these provisions, to apply more stringent rules of 
pleading than those that ordinarily apply.  (See § 425.10, subd. (a) [a complaint is 
sufficient if it contains “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, 
in ordinary and concise language.”].)  Thus, the complaint ordinarily is sufficient 
 
 
22
if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts.  (Burks v. Poppy Construction 
Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463, 473-474; Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Assn. Inc. 
v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099 [“It has been 
consistently held that ‘ “a plaintiff is required only to set forth the essential facts of 
his case with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint a 
defendant with the nature, source and extent of his cause of action” ’ ”].)  
Moreover, “[p]laintiff may allege on information and belief any matters that are 
not within his personal knowledge, if he has information leading him to believe 
that the allegations are true.”  (Pridonoff v. Balokovich (1951) 36 Cal.2d 788, 
792.) 
 
Furthermore, we agree with plaintiffs that the doctrine of less particularity 
may be especially appropriate in this setting.  The legislative history of Senate Bill 
No. 1779 demonstrates the Legislature was particularly sensitive to cases of 
childhood sexual abuse in which the nonperpetrator defendant concealed from 
victims of that abuse its knowledge of the perpetrator’s past acts of unlawful 
sexual conduct.  “[C]laims of some victims were delayed because the employer 
withheld information from victims or lied to victims so the employers’ negligence 
and wrongful conduct would not be discovered.  This is a key distinction and 
policy justification for holding these wrongdoing employers liable past the 
victim’s 26th birthday.  In these cases, the evidence is not lost because the 
perpetrator of the abuse could not be found or his memories faded.  Instead, the 
evidence is in the possession of the wrongdoing employer or third party, who 
knew or had reason to know of complaints of sexual misconduct against the 
employee or agent but failed to take reasonable steps to avoid future unlawful acts 
by that employee or agent.”  (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 
1779, as amended June 6, 2002, p. 9.) 
 
 
23
 
This recognition by the Legislature that one reason a plaintiff may remain 
ignorant of the nonperpetrator defendant’s wrongdoing is because that defendant 
has withheld or concealed evidence of its wrongdoing argues strongly in favor of 
broader, rather than more restrictive, standards of pleading where subdivision 
(b)(2) is alleged to apply.  In the appropriate case, a plaintiff should be able to rely 
on the doctrine of less particularity where he or she can plausibly allege that the 
nonperpetrator defendant withheld or concealed evidence of its knowledge or 
notice of the perpetrator’s past unlawful sexual conduct with minors.5 
 
Nothing in the foregoing discussion, however, assists these plaintiffs 
because no degree of broad construction of their pleadings can supply what is 
missing from them — allegations that defendants knew, had reason to know, or 
were otherwise on notice of past incidents of unlawful sexual conduct by Kalish 
with minors that triggered the duty on defendant’s part to take preventive measure 
to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct by Kalish in the future.   
 
Plaintiffs’ repetitive and rambling allegations regarding the knowledge or 
notice requirement can be distilled into five categories.  First, there are numerous 
allegations to the effect that defendants inadequately supervised the Explorer 
Scout program at Devonshire station during the time period that plaintiffs 
participated in the program and, as a result, it was staffed by unqualified officers 
                                              
5  On the other hand, the pleading must conform to “the general rule that a 
complaint must contain only allegations of ultimate facts as opposed to allegations 
of . . . legal conclusions . . . . ”  (Burke v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 276, 
279, fn. 4.)  Thus a pleading that did no more than assert boilerplate allegations 
that defendants knew or were on notice of the perpetrator’s past unlawful sexual 
conduct would not be sufficient nor would allegations of information and belief 
that merely asserted the facts so alleged without alleging such information that 
“lead[s] [the plaintiff] to believe that the allegations are true.”  (Pridonoff v. 
Balokovic, supra, 36 Cal.2d at p. 792.) 
 
 
24
who engaged in improper activity with the participants.  Second, there are general 
allegations that the BSA was aware of past incidents involving sexual molestation 
of scouts by scout leaders along with more specific allegations that, prior to 
Kalish’s molestation of plaintiffs, defendants were aware of incidents of sexual 
misconduct by other officers involved in the Explorer Scout programs at the 
Hollywood and Devonshire stations.  Third, there are general allegations that BSA 
was aware that sexual predators were active in its programs.  In this connection, 
plaintiffs allege that there were significant reported incidents of sexual misconduct 
by scout leaders after 1980 from which they infer that a comparable number of 
such incidents was known to the BSA before 1980.  Fourth, there are allegations 
that other police officers were aware of Kalish’s pedophilic tendencies — these 
are the “commonly known” allegations — because of his open interest in young 
boys, the favoritism he showed to certain of the scouts, including the plaintiffs, his 
inappropriate fraternization with some scouts, including plaintiffs, both on the job 
and at his home, his alleged association with a known pornographer, and his trips 
to Thailand where he was observed in the company of a young boy, among other 
allegations.  Fifth, there are the allegations pertaining to Kalish’s molestation of 
plaintiffs while he was on duty. 
 
Plaintiffs argue that these allegations satisfy the knowledge or notice 
requirement of subdivision (b)(2) because that subdivision requires nothing more 
than constructive knowledge or notice by the nonperpetrator defendant of a single 
incident of sexual misconduct “no matter how minor,” by “any of [the 
nonperpetrator defendant’s] employees, volunteers, representatives or agents” to 
“subject [the defendant] to the provisions of subdivision (b)(2).”  This argument, 
however, wrenches out of context particular words in the provision — “any 
unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent” — 
in a manner incompatible with the principles of statutory construction to which we 
 
 
25
have previously referred and also with the legislative intent behind the subdivision 
as expressed in the plain language of the statute and the legislative history.  
Plaintiffs’ argument impliedly concedes what is plain on the face of their 
complaints:  that their complaints fail to allege that defendants had knowledge of 
Kalish’s past unlawful sexual conduct with minors, which is the prerequisite for 
imposing upon these defendants liability for his subsequent sexual abuse of 
plaintiffs.  That plaintiffs had knowledge or notice of misconduct by Kalish that 
created a risk of sexual exploitation is not enough under the express terms of the 
statute.  In the absence of sufficient allegations of knowledge or notice on the part 
of these defendants, their demurrers were correctly sustained and the actions 
against them properly dismissed.6 
                                              
6  We are not persuaded by plaintiffs’ claim that the requirement of a certificate of 
corroborative fact set forth in section 340.1, subdivisions (m) and (n) has any 
bearing whatsoever on the pleading requirements for subdivision (b)(2).  The 
former subdivisions — which, collectively, require that a plaintiff submit a 
certificate of corroborative fact before the court allows substitution of a named 
defendant for a Doe defendant — are, along with the certificate of merit 
requirement in section 340.1, subdivision (h), statutory safeguards that operate to 
prevent “frivolous and unsubstantial claims.”  (McVeigh v. Doe 1, supra, 138 
Cal.App.4th at p. 904.) 
 
 
26
III.  DISPOSITION 
 
We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 
MORENO, J. 
WE CONCUR: GEORGE, C. J. 
 
KENNARD, J. 
 
BAXTER, J. 
 
WERDEGAR, J. 
 
CHIN, J. 
 
CORRIGAN, J. 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion Doe v. City of Los Angeles 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 137 Cal.App.4th 438 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S142546 
Date Filed: November 1, 2007 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Los Angeles 
Judge: Robert L. Hess 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
Zalkin & Zimmer, Devin M. Storey, Irwin M. Zalkin; Taylor & Ring, David M. Ring, John C. Taylor; 
Bennett, Johnson & Galler, Todd A. Walburg and William C. Johnson for Plaintiffs and Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Janet G. Bogigian, Assistant City Attorney, and Amy Jo Field, 
Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent City of Los Angeles. 
 
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Christina J. Imre, Orly Degani, Gregory H. Halliday and Thomas A. 
Delaney for Defendant and Respondent Boy Scouts of America. 
 
Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman, J. Michael Hennigan and Lee W. Potts for Roman Catholic Archbishop of 
Los Angeles and Defense Laison Counsel as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Boy 
Scouts of America. 
 
Sweeney & Greene, James F. Sweeney and Stephen R. McCutcheon, Jr., for California Catholic 
Conference as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Boy Scouts of America. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
Devin M. Storey 
Zalkin & Zimmer 
12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 260 
San Diego, CA  92130 
(858) 259-3011 
 
Irwin M. Zalkin 
Zalkin & Zimmer 
12555 High Bluff Drive, Suite 260 
San Diego, CA  92130 
(858) 259-3011 
 
Amy Jo Field 
Deputy City Attorney 
200 North Main Street, 600 City Hall East 
Los Angeles, CA  90012 
(213) 978-6925 
 
Christina J. Imre 
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold 
801 South Figueroa Street, 19th Floor 
Los Angeles, CA  90017-5556 
(213) 426-6900