BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 164
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
164 (Gomez) - As Amended August 17, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | N/A |Vote:| N/A |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This urgency bill appropriates $517,255 from the General Fund
(GF) and $517,255 from the Dungeness Crab Account (DCA), within
the Fish and Game Preservation Fund, to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) to pay the Marilley v. McCamman settlement.
AB 164
Page 2
Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the
claims revert back to the appropriate Fund or Account.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time GF appropriation of $517,255 and one-time special fund
appropriation of $517,255, to DOJ to pay the legal settlement.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill is one of the 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). This settlement was
entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel
(DOJ). It is a binding state obligation.
2)Background. Kevin Marilley, et al. v. McCamman. This case
involved a group of commercial fishermen who were not
California residents but fished in California waters. A class
action suit was filed in the United States District Court
against John McCamman in his official capacity as
then-Director of the California Department of Fish and Game.
This case was litigated by DOJ's Natural Resources Section.
The plaintiffs challenged California's commercial fishing
licensing statutes, which charged nonresident fishermen two to
three times more than the fees assessed on resident
competitors. These fees were created through a series of
bills and were intended to close budget gaps and protect
natural resources. The plaintiffs asserted that these
differential fees are unconstitutional under both the
Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection
Clause. The fishermen and the state filed cross-motions for
AB 164
Page 3
summary judgment.
The court found that the differential fees did violate the
Privileges and Immunities Clause and concluded that the state
failed to demonstrate a substantial state interest. The court
found that the legislative history of the commercial fees
indicated that the increased fees had an economic
protectionist purpose, and declared that the state had failed
to prove that distinguishing between resident and nonresident
commercial fishing license fees advanced another important
state interest. The court denied the state's motion and
granted the plaintiffs' motion.
Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys fees and court
costs; a favorable settlement of these fees was proposed by
DOJ and accepted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. This
claim represents this settlement, which is the final
disposition of the case. The Department of Finance approved
an appropriation of the amount to be split between the GF and
the DCA.
1)Related legislation.
a) SB 302 (Lara), Statutes of 2015, appropriated $24,1
million from the GF, and $141,250 from the Athletic
Commission Fund, to specified departments for the payment
of four settlements.
b) AB 1615 (Gatto), Chapter 142, Statutes of 2014,
AB 164
Page 4
appropriated $2.9 million from the State Board of
Chiropractic Examiners' Fund and the GF to the DOJ for the
payment of two settlements.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081