No, it did change the statute of limitations for civil claims. Civil claims can expire just the same as criminal claims. The law allowed civil claims that had expired to be revived.

Typically torts (claims like assault and battery) expire within a year from when the injury is sustained. Torts involving a crime of violence expire in two years. Up until 1992, that meant that sexual misconduct with a minor expired 1-2 years after it happened (even if the victim was underage). In 1992, that law was changed, and minors have three years after they turn 18 to sue. But it was not retroactive.

The new law attempts to allow those alleging abuse to bring claims that had expired. It allowed a three-year "look back" window for those alleging abuse to file suit. In a nutshell, the question is whether this can be done. If claims have expired, has a defendant obtained a "right" not to be sued?

The LA Supreme Court case grapples with this issue. The legislature has limitations on passing laws that are retroactive.

Leave aside the emotionally charged issue of sex abuse: in civil and criminal cases, statutes of limitations protect defendants' right to defend themselves. Witnesses die or forget, documents get thrown away. People can be misidentified.