BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 164
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
164 (Gomez)
As Amended September 2, 2015
2/3 vote. Urgency
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(August 24, |SENATE: | 40-0 |(September 9, |
| | |2015) | | |2015) |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: APPR.
SUMMARY: Appropriates $2,217,255 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 Humphries v. County of Los Angeles and the Marilley
v. McCamman settlements.
Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the
claims revert back to the appropriate Fund or Account.
The Senate amendments add a one-time appropriation of $1,700,000
in 2015-16 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement in
Humphries v. County of Los Angele..
FISCAL EFFECT: One-time GF appropriation of $2,217,255 and
one-time special fund appropriation of $517,255, to DOJ to pay
AB 164
Page 2
the legal settlement.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This 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.
a) Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (United
States District Court, Central District of California, Case
No. SACV 03-0697-JVS) $1,700,000 settlement, payable from
the General Fund.
The California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act
(CANRA) formerly provided for the reporting of child abuse
allegations that were "not unfounded" to the DOJ for
inclusion in its Child Abuse Central Index (CACI).
Plaintiffs in the Humphries case were parents of a child
who accused them of child abuse, but the courts found the
allegations to be untrue and charges against the parents
were dismissed. The CANRA statutes did not include a
process for removal of exonerated individuals accused of
child abuse from the CACI, and the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department did not agree to remove them.
Plaintiffs filed a case against the Attorney General and
the County of Los Angeles, claiming that their
constitutional due process rights had been violated because
they had been deprived the right to challenge their
inclusion in CACI. The district court dismissed their
claims, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that holding on
appeal and found that the continued listing of the
plaintiffs in CACI violated the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs are entitled to
reasonable attorney's fees, and filed a motion seeking over
$3 million from the State. This claim for $1.7 million
represents a settlement for attorneys' fees negotiated
AB 164
Page 3
through mediation in federal court.
b) 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 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 attorney 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.
3)Related legislation.
AB 164
Page 4
a) SB 302 (Lara), Chapter 5, 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,
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 Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 FN:
0002351