Victims of sexual abuse or sexual assault have the right to file civil lawsuits and seek financial compensation. Recent changes in California law are now making it easier for many abuse survivors to seek justice in the civil courts.
This page will discuss how sex abuse victims can file civil lawsuits in California, who may be legally responsible, the statute of limitations, and the potential settlement compensation in these cases.
A new wave of Best Buy “fake discount” class action lawsuits has targeted the company’s use of advertised sale prices, “Was” prices, “Regular” prices, “Comp. Value” prices, and limited-time savings claims. These lawsuits accuse Best Buy of making ordinary prices appear to be special discounts by comparing current selling prices to reference prices that allegedly were not real, recent, or regularly charged.
In January 2025, Porchia v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleged that Best Buy used deceptive reference prices for televisions and major appliances sold in stores and online. That case is no longer pending. After mediation, the plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal in November 2025, thereby terminating the case. The dismissal notice stated that no class had been certified and no settlement class had been proposed.
But the broader issue has not gone away. In 2026, Best Buy was hit with new lawsuits challenging similar pricing practices. In April 2026, Morgan v. MN Best Buy Co., Inc. was filed in the Central District of California. In May 2026, Tanner v. Best Buy Co., Inc. was filed in the Northern District of California. These newer lawsuits continue the same basic theory: Best Buy allegedly advertised fake or inflated reference prices to create the illusion of savings.
Our attorneys are reviewing sexual abuse claims involving the Erickson Center for Adolescent Advancement in Van Nuys, California. Erickson Center was a residential youth treatment facility on Woodman Avenue that served teenagers placed there for mental health support, substance abuse treatment, behavioral issues, transitional care, or juvenile justice-related supervision.
If you were sent to Erickson Center as a child or teenager, you were not there because you had power. You were there because adults, agencies, courts, parents, counselors, or institutions had control over where you lived, what you could do, who you could call, and who you were expected to trust. That setting can help children when the right safeguards exist. Without those safeguards, it can become the perfect storm for predators.
The claims our lawyers are reviewing focus on sexual abuse, sexual assault, grooming, exploitation, physical abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, and institutional silence. The legal question is not only what one abuser did. The larger question is whether Erickson Center, its operators, supervisors, parent entities, contractors, or oversight agencies failed to protect vulnerable minors placed in their care.
Lenovo class action lawsuits have targeted several different problems in Lenovo laptops and consumer products, including defective displays, broken hinges, battery drain, USB and microphone failures, website privacy claims, and preinstalled software. Some of these cases have already settled. Others are still pending or in the investigation stage.
As of June 2026, the older Lenovo Flex 5 and Yoga 730 display defect settlements are closed. The newer Lenovo class action activity involves a pending website privacy case and active investigations into laptop hardware defects, especially hinge cracking in the Lenovo IdeaPad 5 Type 81YK. We talk about all these cases and your options.
A cerebral palsy birth injury lawsuit is a medical malpractice claim filed by a family who believes a doctor, nurse, midwife, hospital, or newborn care team made a mistake that caused a baby to suffer a preventable brain injury. These cases usually involve hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE), fetal distress, delayed C-section, neonatal seizures, low cord gases, abnormal MRI findings, and a later diagnosis of cerebral palsy.
The hard truth is that not every case of cerebral palsy is a lawsuit. Many children with cerebral palsy did not suffer malpractice. Cerebral palsy can come from abnormal brain development, prematurity, infection, stroke, genetics, placental disease, or events that happened before labor. But cerebral palsy far too often also results from preventable oxygen deprivation during labor, delayed delivery, poor fetal monitoring, mismanaged Pitocin, untreated newborn seizures, or a newborn emergency that should have been handled faster. These preventable mistakes are a runway that often leads to cerebral palsy.
The best cerebral palsy birth injury cases are built from the records. The fetal monitor strip is often the closest thing to a black box in the delivery room. It can show whether the baby was doing well, when the baby began to struggle, how long the distress continued, and whether the delivery team responded quickly enough. The cord gases, Apgar scores, resuscitation notes, cooling records, NICU chart, MRI, EEG, placental pathology, and pediatric neurology records help answer the rest.
If you have ever bought a product, signed up for a service, paid hidden fees, received a data breach notice, used a subscription service, or dealt with a company accused of misleading consumers, there is a chance you were included in a class action settlement. The problem is that many people never claim the money available to them.
Some class action settlements require receipts, account records, loss documents, or proof of purchase. Others are no-proof class action settlements. That means eligible class members may be able to file a claim by certifying that they bought the product, used the service, received the notice, or otherwise fit the settlement criteria.
A birth injury lawsuit is filed when a family believes a doctor, nurse, midwife, hospital, or newborn care team made a medical mistake that caused a preventable injury to a baby. These cases often involve cerebral palsy, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, neonatal seizures, brain damage, Erb’s palsy, brachial plexus injury, developmental delay, or another permanent disability.
If you are reading this page, you probably are not looking for a medical textbook. You are trying to understand what happened to your child. You may remember the monitor alarms, the nurse coming in and out, the doctor being called, the delay before the C-section, the baby not crying, the NICU transfer, the seizures, or the first time someone said “brain injury” or “cerebral palsy.” Families come to us because they want answers, and because those answers matter for the rest of their child’s life.
Hospitals and doctors fight these cases hard. The defense will argue the injury happened before labor, came from genetics, prematurity, infection, placental problems, maternal conditions, or an unavoidable emergency. Of course, sometimes that is true. But sometimes, far too often, the fetal monitor was screaming for help, the C-section was delayed, Pitocin was mismanaged, shoulder dystocia was handled poorly, or a newborn emergency was not treated fast enough.
Internal bra mesh lawsuits are being filed by women who say surgical mesh used in breast augmentation, breast lift, breast reduction, revision, or post-mastectomy reconstruction caused serious injuries instead of support. Our lawyers are handling these claims.
These cases involve products such as GalaFLEX, GalaFLEX Lite, GalaFLEX 3D, GalaFLEX 3DR, Phasix Mesh, Phasix ST Mesh, and other synthetic or biologic mesh products used to reinforce breast tissue or support implants. The core claims are that the mesh caused infection, chronic pain, nerve damage, seroma, inflammation, capsular contracture, mesh exposure, implant malposition, reconstruction failure, disfigurement, revision surgery, or removal surgery.
An internal bra is a surgical technique. The mesh is placed inside the breast to provide support beneath the tissue or implant. When it works, the goal is lift, support, and stability. When it fails, the patient can be left with pain, infection, hardening, scarring, deformity, implant loss, or a surgery that has to be redone.
Spinal cord stimulator lawsuits are being filed by patients who say their implanted pain device caused new injuries instead of relief. Our lawyers are handling these claims.
These cases involve devices made by Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, Nevro, and other neuromodulation companies. The core claims are that the device migrated, malfunctioned, shocked the patient, burned, failed to control pain, caused neurological problems, required revision surgery, or had to be removed entirely.
A spinal cord stimulator is a surgically implanted device near the spinal cord. The leads sit in the epidural space, and the implanted pulse generator sends electrical stimulation intended to interfere with pain signals. When the device works, it helps patients with chronic pain. When it fails, the patient is often left with worse pain, additional surgery, nerve injury, infection, paralysis, or permanent limitations that did not exist before the implant.
Grok sexual deepfake lawsuits are being filed against xAI over claims that Grok and related image-generation tools were used to create and spread nonconsensual sexual images of real people. The lawsuits focus on a simple question with serious consequences: Did XAI release and promote a tool that could turn ordinary photos of women, girls, and other real people into sexualized deepfakes without meaningful safeguards?
These are not ordinary internet defamation cases. A sexual deepfake can look real, spread fast, attach itself to a victim’s name, and keep resurfacing after the original post is removed. Survivors describe fear, humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of privacy, reputational harm, school disruption, work disruption, and the awful feeling that strangers may have saved, shared, or traded fake intimate images of them.
The strongest Grok deepfake cases will be built on proof: the prompt history, the source photo, the generated image or link, the account that posted it, takedown requests, platform responses, police reports, school reports, therapy records, witness statements, and evidence that xAI knew this kind of misuse was foreseeable before more people were harmed.
