BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
568 (Lieu)
Hearing Date: 08/17/2009 Amended: 07/23/2009
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Judiciary 4-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 568 provides that every nonresidential building
or place used for the purpose of willfully manufacturing,
intentionally selling, or knowingly possessing for sale any
counterfeit goods is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated,
and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered. This bill
would allow a district attorney, city attorney, or any citizen
or resident to bring an action to abate and prevent the nuisance
and perpetually enjoin the person conducting or maintaining the
nuisance. This bill requires district attorneys or city
attorneys to report to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate
and the Assembly specific information regarding the
implementation of this bill, by October 1, 2013. The provisions
of this bill would sunset on January 1, 2015.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2009-10
2010-11 2011-12 Fund
New criminal penalties Non-reimbursable
enforcement costs Local
State mandate on city and Likely less than $50, if found to
be reimbursable* General
district attorneys
Increased court caseload Unknown, likely minor increase in
court time General**
*Suggested amendment would likely remove local mandate.
**Trial Courts Trust Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill may meet the criteria for referral to
the Suspense File.
This bill would allow a district attorney, city attorney, or
private citizen to take legal action to abate and prevent a
nuisance declared under the provisions of this bill. Because
this bill allows additional actions to be taken in court with
respect to nuisance abatement, including by private citizens,
this bill could result in increased court caseloads and time,
adding to cost pressure on the General Fund for additional
judges and court staff.
This bill also requires that all district attorneys, city
attorneys, and city prosecutors to report to the Senate and
Assembly Judiciary Committees "on their use of the provisions of
this chapter and its effectiveness," as specified. The
provisions of this bill will be primarily used by large, urban
counties, and counties which do not seek these abatements can
reasonably send a letter stating such as their "report".
Nonetheless, the bill currently imposes a state mandate on local
agencies. My imposing a mandate, the state could be forced to
reimburse counties that use the provisions of this bill for the
staff time to prepare the October 1, 2013 report.
Page 2
AB 568 (Lieu)
While it is unlikely that, even in Los Angeles County, the
requirements of the report would reach the threshold for
referral to the Suspense File ($50,000 General Fund), it is not
known what the aggregate amount would be. The report specifies
statistical analysis and interpretation of program
effectiveness.
Staff recommends that the bill be amended to require the
specified report only from local agencies that choose to
exercise the authority provided by the bill, to avoid a local
mandate claim.