BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                SB 371
                                                                Page  1


         REPLACE  :  05/29/2013  Changes per consultant. 

        SENATE THIRD READING
        SB 371 (De León)
        As Amended  April 10, 2013
        2/3 vote.  Urgency

         SENATE VOTE  :34-3  
         
         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5                                        
         
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
        |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra,         |     |                          |
        |     |Bradford,                 |     |                          |
        |     |Ian Calderon, Campos,     |     |                          |
        |     |Eggman, Gomez, Hall,      |     |                          |
        |     |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk,      |     |                          |
        |     |Weber                     |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
        |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
        |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow,          |     |                          |
        |     |Donnelly, Linder,Wagner   |     |                          |
        |     |                          |     |                          |
         ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
         SUMMARY  :  Appropriates $15,557,808 General Fund (GF) to the  
        Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay two settlements.  Any funds  
        appropriated in excess of the amounts required for payment of these  
        claims revert to the GF.

         FISCAL EFFECT  :  One-time GF appropriation of $15,557,808 to DOJ in  
        2012-13 as follows:  
         
        1)$15,517,808 to pay the settlement in Ragatz v. State of California  
          (CalFire), Solano Superior Court.  

         2)$40,000 to pay the settlement in Doe v. State of California, Los  
          Angeles Superior Court.          
         
         COMMENTS  :
        
         1)Rationale  . This bill is one of several bills carried by the chairs  
          of the Appropriations Committees each year to provide  
          appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by DOJ and  
          the Department of Finance (DOF).  These settlements were entered  








                                                                SB 371
                                                                Page  2


          into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ).  They are  
          binding state obligations.

         2)Case Background  :

           a)   Ragatz v. State of California (CalFire).  

             This is a personal injury claim arising from a traffic accident  
             where plaintiff Rachel Ragatz struck the rear end of a CalFire  
             truck.  Photographs of the accident scene show the CalFire  
             truck's rear tires were three feet into the roadway at the time  
             of the collision, supporting a finding of full liability. The  
             CalFire truck's brake lights were activated, however the hazard  
             lights on the vehicle were not activated.  The impact was  
             substantial, as Ms. Ragatz's small SUV's hood was crushed and  
             the jaws-of-life were used to extricate her from her vehicle.   
             Ms. Ragatz sustained permanent, life-altering brain injuries  
             when her vehicle collided with the state fire vehicle, which  
             may have been obscured by smoke.  The plaintiff is young, faces  
             uncertain employment prospects, and a lifetime of care.  She  
             further cannot drive a car, vote, or live independently due to  
             her conservatorship.

             DOJ believes this settlement is fair based on future medical  
             care, loss of earning capacity and the need for future daily  
             living assistance. 

           b)   Doe v. State of California. 

             On September 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging that  
             the state had failed to ensure that public school districts do  
             not charge impermissible pupil fees.  Governor Brown's signing  
             of AB 1575 (Lara), Chapter 776, Statutes of 2012, on September  
             29, 2012, provided the plaintiffs with the relief they sought  
             by their amended complaint, with the exception of attorney's  
             fees. 

             (AB 1575 prohibits the assessment of fees by public schools on  
             pupils for specified educational activities, requires the State  
             Department of Education to distribute guidance to public  
             schools regarding pupil fees, and establishes a complaint  
             process to address allegations of the imposition of unlawful  
             pupil fees.)









                                                                SB 371
                                                                Page  3


             Plaintiffs' counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union, billed  
             approximately $192,000 in fees and costs in litigating this  
             case.  Plaintiffs  requested $95,000 in attorney's fees to  
             settle the case, $47,500 from the state, and $47,500 from the  
             education defendants.  To avoid the expense of litigating the  
             attorney's fees issue, the parties have agreed to resolve the  
             attorney's fees.  The State Department of Education and the  
             State Board of Education have agreed to the proposed settlement  
             and have made payment from existing resources, while DOJ  
             negotiated a reduced amount of $40,000.  

             DOJ contends the petitioners had a strong basis for an  
             attorney's fees claim based on the catalyst theory of recovery.

         3)The Motor Vehicle Insurance Account (MVIA)  is essentially a state  
          insurance fund into which state departments pay a premium, based  
          on a five-year rolling average of the department's costs, to cover  
          the costs of vehicle accident liability and settlements.  For  
          example, over the past three years, including 2013-14 as  
          projected, the MVIA averaged $38 million per year in expenditures,  
          and $45 million in revenue. 

          Generally accident settlements involving a state vehicle would be  
          paid from the MVIA.  Due to the size of the Ragatz claim, however,  
          and with two more large settlements looming, the Department of  
          Finance recommended the Ragatz claim be paid straight from the GF  
          since the MVIA cannot bear the cost of these large settlements in  
          one year, and the CalFire's increased premium would require a GF  
          increase to its budget to cover the drain on the MVIA.

           a)   SB 1558, (Kehoe), Chapter 20, Statutes of 2012, appropriated  
             $2.6 million to pay for one settlement.

           b)   SB 730 (Kehoe), Chapter 5, Statutes of 2012, appropriated  
             $13 million to DOJ to pay for six settlements. 


         Analysis Prepared by  :    Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 FN:  
        0000988