BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 406|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 406
Author: Evans (D)
Amended: 6/18/14
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 1/14/14
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 33-0, 1/23/14
AYES: Anderson, Beall, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, Corbett,
Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Evans, Gaines, Galgiani, Hancock,
Hernandez, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Jackson, Knight, Lara, Leno,
Lieu, Liu, Mitchell, Monning, Padilla, Roth, Steinberg,
Torres, Vidak, Walters, Wolk, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Fuller, Nielsen, Pavley, Wright,
Wyland, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/7/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Tribal Court Civil Money Judgment Act
SOURCE : Blue Lake Rancheria
Judicial Council
DIGEST : This bill establishes the Tribal Court Civil Money
Judgment Act (TCCMJA) to govern the process by which a party
could seek recognition of a tribal court money judgment in
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
2
California state courts.
Assembly Amendments add a sunset date of January 1, 2018, and
require the California Law Revision Commission to conduct a
study of the standards for recognition of a tribal court or a
foreign court judgment under the TCCMJA and the Uniform
Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, and submit a
report of its findings and recommendations to the Legislature
and the Governor no later than January 1, 2017.
ANALYSIS : Existing law, the Uniform Foreign-County Money
Judgments Recognitions Act (UFCMJRA), governs the enforcement of
judgments of foreign countries within California courts, and
provides the grounds for nonrecognition. The UFCMJRA does not
apply to a judgment for taxes; a fine or other penalty; or a
judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other judgment
rendered in connection with domestic relations.
The UFCMJRA, defines "foreign-country judgment" to mean a
judgment of a court of a foreign country, as otherwise defined,
including a judgment by any Indian tribe recognized by the
government of the United States.
Existing federal case law provides that, as a general rule, the
recognition of a tribal court order within U.S. federal courts
is governed by the principles of comity.
Existing federal case law provides that federal courts must
neither recognize nor enforce tribal judgments if the tribal
court did not have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction
or if the defendant was not afforded due process of the law.
Existing federal case law provides that a federal court may, in
its discretion, decline to recognize and enforce a tribal
judgment on equitable grounds, including in the following
circumstances: (1) the judgment was obtained by fraud; (2) the
judgment conflicts with another final judgment entitled to
recognition; (3) the judgment is inconsistent with the parties'
contractual choice of forum; or (4) recognition of the judgment,
or the cause of action upon which it is based, is against the
public policy of the U.S. or the forum state in which
recognition is sought.
This bill:
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
3
1. Establishes, until January 1, 2018, the TCCMJA to govern the
procedures for applying and objecting to an application for
the recognition of tribal court money judgments of federally
recognized Indian tribes in California state courts. The
TCCMJA does not apply to the following types of tribal court
money judgments:
A. For taxes, fines, or other penalties;
B. For which federal law requires that states grant full
faith and credit recognition, including child support
orders, as specified;
C. For which state law provides for recognition,
including child support orders recognized under specified
state law; or
D. For decedents' estates, guardianships,
conservatorships, internal affairs of trusts, powers of
attorney, or other tribal court money judgments that arise
in proceedings that are or would be governed by the
Probate Code.
1. Specifies that the proper county for the filing of an
application is either the county in which any respondent
resides or owns property and if no respondent is a resident,
any county in this state.
2. Requires specific information to be included in the
application, to be signed under penalty of perjury.
3. Specifies documents that must be attached to the
application, including:
A. A copy of the tribal court rules of procedure pursuant
to which the tribal court money judgment was entered; and
B. A declaration under penalty of perjury by the tribal
court clerk, applicant, or applicant's attorney stating,
based on personal knowledge, that the case that resulted
in the entry of the judgment was conducted in compliance
with those rules.
1. Provides for the service of notice upon the respondent of
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
4
the filing of the application to recognize and enter the
tribal court money judgment.
2. Provides that, if no objections are timely filed, the clerk
must certify that no objections were timely filed, and a
judgment shall be entered. Provides that the judgment
entered by the superior court must be based on and contain
the provisions and terms of the tribal court money judgment
and entered in the same manner, have the same effect, and be
enforceable in the same manner as any civil judgment, order,
or decree of a court of this state.
3. Provides timelines for service and filing of an objection
(within 30 days of service of the notice of filing), replies
to the objection (to be set by the superior court), for a
hearing upon the matter (within 45 days from the date the
objection is filed absent good cause for a later hearing),
and specifies the permissible grounds for objection.
4. Requires the superior court to decline recognition and entry
of a tribal court money judgment in certain circumstances.
5. Permits the superior court, in its discretion, to decline to
recognize and enter a tribal court money judgment on any of
the following grounds:
A. The defendant in the proceeding in the tribal court
did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient
time to enable the defendant to defend;
B. The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the
losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its
case;
C. The judgment or the cause of action or claim for
relief on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the
public policy of the state or of the U.S.;
D. The judgment conflicts with another final and
conclusive judgment;
E. The proceeding in the tribal court was contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in
question was to be determined otherwise than by
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
5
proceedings in that tribal court;
F. In the case of jurisdiction based on personal service
only the tribal court was a seriously inconvenient forum
for the trial of the action;
G. The judgment was rendered under circumstances that
raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the
rendering court with respect to the judgment;
H. The specific proceeding in the tribal court leading to
the judgment was not compatible with the due process of
law; or
I. The judgment includes recovery for a claim of
defamation, unless the court determines that the
defamation law applied by the tribal court provided at
least as much protection for freedom of speech and the
press as provided by both the U.S. and California
Constitutions.
1. Provides that, if objections have been timely filed, the
applicant has the burden of establishing that the tribal
court money judgment is entitled to recognition. If the
applicant has met the burden, the burden shifts to the party
resisting recognition to establish that a ground for
nonrecognition, as listed above, exists.
2. Requires the superior court to grant a stay of enforcement,
as specified, if the respondent demonstrates any of the
following:
A. An appeal form the tribal court judgment is pending or
may be taken in the tribal court;
B. A stay of enforcement of the tribal court money
judgment has been granted by the tribal court; or
C. Any other circumstances exists where the interest of
justice require a stay of enforcement.
1. Specifies the time period for commencing an action to
recognize a tribal court judgment.
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
6
2. Permits the superior court, after notice to all parties, to
attempt to resolve any issues raised regarding a tribal court
money judgment by contacting the tribal court judge who
issued the judgment, as specified.
3. Specifies that the UFCMJRA applies to all actions commenced
in superior court before the effective date of this bill in
which the issue of recognition of a tribal court money
judgment is raised, and that its provisions apply to all
actions commenced in superior court on or after the effective
date of this bill.
4. Specifies that a judgment entered under TCCMJA shall not
limit the right of a party to seek enforcement of any part of
a judgment, order or decree entered into a tribal court that
is not encompassed by the judgment entered under TCCMJA.
5. Defines various terms for the purpose of TCCMJA.
6. Specifies that nothing in TCCMJA shall be deemed or
construed to expand or limit the jurisdiction of either the
state or any Indian tribe.
7. Strikes reference to judgments by any Indian tribe
recognized by the government of the U.S. from the definition
of foreign-county judgment in the UCFMJRA.
8. Requires the California Law Revision Commission to conduct a
study of the standards for recognition of a tribal court or a
foreign court judgment under the TCCMJA and the Uniform
Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, and to submit
a report of its findings and recommendations to the
Legislature and the Governor no later than January 1, 2017.
Background
Native American tribes are "domestic dependent nations that
exercise inherent sovereign authority over their members and
territories." (Cal. Jur. 3d. Indians Sec. 2.) For a tribal
court to hear a case, it must have both subject matter
jurisdiction (the power to hear the specific kind of claim that
is brought to that court), and personal jurisdiction (the
requirement that a defendant have certain minimum contacts with
the forum in which the court sits) over the defendant.
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
7
At times, just as a party may seek to enforce another state's
judgment against a resident of California by bringing their
judgment to a California court, a party who has obtained a
tribal court judgment may turn to California courts to seek
recognition and enforcement of his/her tribal court judgment
against a California resident. In contrast to the full faith
and credit that is constitutionally required to be given to the
judgments rendered by sister states' courts, under existing law,
California state courts generally recognize tribal court
judgments under the principles of comity, as they do the
judgments of foreign country tribunals.
Comity, as described by the Ninth Circuit in Wilson v.
Marchington, "'is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on
the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the
other.' As a general policy, 'comity should withheld only when
its acceptance could be contrary or prejudicial to the nation
called upon to give it effect.' At its core, comity involves a
balancing of interests. 'It is the recognition which one nation
allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or
judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to
international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own
citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection of
its laws.' Although the status of Indian tribes as 'dependent
domestic nations' presents some unique circumstances, comity
still affords the best general analytical framework for
recognizing tribal judgments" (internal citations omitted). The
Ninth Circuit also made clear in Wilson that "Comity does not
require that a tribe utilize judicial procedures identical to
those used in the United States Courts."
Currently, claims to recognize money judgments of foreign
country tribunals, including of tribal courts, are governed by
the UFCMJRA. That process, however, is reportedly costly and
time-consuming. In 2012, the Judicial Council, upon
recommendation of several of its committees, including the
California Tribal Court/State Court Forum and the Civil and
Small Claims Advisory Committee, adopted a proposal that would
provide "a discrete procedure for recognizing and enforcing
tribal court civil judgments, providing for swifter recognition
of such judgments while continuing to apply the principles of
comity appropriate to judgments of sovereign tribes."
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
8
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/7/14)
Blue Lake Rancheria (co-source)
Judicial Council (co-source)
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/7/14)
Dehesa Valley Community Council Inc.
Stand Up For California
Stop Graton Casino
West Bank Homeowners Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The Judicial Council, co-sponsor of
this bill, states:
California is home to more people of Indian ancestry than any
other state in the nation. At this time, there are
approximately 110 federally recognized tribes in California,
second only to the number of tribes in the state of Alaska.
Each tribe is sovereign, with powers of internal
self-government, including the authority to develop and
operate a court system. Currently, approximately 22 tribal
courts are operating in California, and several other courts
are under development. [ . . . ]
SB 406 applies only to civil judgments and orders by tribal
courts for money judgments. The bill does not apply to
judgments in actions that already have specific recognition
under federal law, or for judgments or order for possession of
real or personal property, or judgments for specific
performance or injunctive relief. SB 406 also exempts money
judgments for taxes, fines, and proceedings that would be
subject to the Probate Code. [ . . . ]
The establishment of this process and timeline for considering
these applications will make enforcement of existing rights
more efficient and economical for both litigants and the
courts without altering any party's substantive rights under
current law. Thus, SB 406 will ensure appropriate recognition
of tribal court civil money judgments in state courts in a
manner that will benefit both court systems.
CONTINUED
SB 406
Page
9
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Stand Up For California argues, "The
grounds for objection to the recognition of a tribal court money
judgment while improved upon in the new language still fail to
provide adequate protections for civil respondents. We resubmit
our letter of March 20, 2013, as it provides significant details
that help define the nature of tribal court jurisdiction, the
overlay of Public Law 280 and ability of tribal courts to have
personal jurisdiction over businesses located off the
reservation, cities and counties dependent on the number of or
comprehensive nature of contracts entered into with the tribal
government or reservation resident."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 78-0, 8/7/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley,
Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eggman, Fong,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon,
Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, John A.
Pérez, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fox, Vacancy
AL:k 8/8/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED