The Arizona Legislature jumped on the bandwagons driven across the country extending statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims. In 2019, Arizona extended the statute of limitations to twelve years, and the legislature created a window statute for certain otherwise time barred sexual abuse claims. As the window statute was closing at the end of 2021, Boyd filed a notice of claim against the State for sexual abuse by a former female corrections officer in 2001.  He included additional claims against other State employees for threatening him not to “make up any lies” about the correctional officer. A few days after filing his notice of claim, he filed his complaint because the window was closing. The complaint was timely; the issue is whether he could file his complaint before the notice of claim expired, and when his cause of action accrued under the revival statute. The State argued the claim accrued when the legislation enacted the new law. The court holds the window revival statute’s phrase “notwithstanding any other law” means notice of claim accrual is irrelevant. Because Boyd filed his complaint before the window closed, his only obligation was to file a notice of claim first and then a complaint. The court sees the law differently from another panel which held otherwise in a memorandum decision a few months back. The court assures us trial courts should make certain the 60 days remains open if a lawsuit is filed before the 60 days has expired. We now have conflicting decisions from Division One. Although the revival window is closed, we will see if the Arizona Supreme Court decides to review the prior case, this one, or perhaps one of the other lawsuits challenging the revival statute at its core. After all, we know where bandwagons end up.

link to opinion