BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1714
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1714 (Fuentes)
As Amended May 25, 2010
2/3 vote. Urgency
APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Fuentes, Conway, Ammiano, | | |
| |Bradford, Charles | | |
| |Calderon, Coto, Davis, | | |
| |Monning, Ruskin, Harkey, | | |
| |Miller, Nielsen, Norby, | | |
| |Skinner, Solorio, | | |
| |Torlakson, Torrico | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Appropriates $1,098,000 (General Fund (GF)) to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay settlements in Humphries v
Lockyer, et al ($536,000) and Gardner, et al, v Schwarzenegger,
et al ($562,000). Any funds appropriated in excess of the amount
required for the payment of these claims shall revert to the GF.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriates $1,098,000 (GF) to pay for two
settlements, and specifies that any funds appropriated in excess
of the amount required will revert to the GF.
COMMENTS :
1)Rationale. This bill is one of two annual bills carried by
the Appropriations chairs to provide appropriation authority
for state judgments and settlements as approved by the DOJ and
the Department of Finance (DOF).
2)Case background.
a) Humphries v. Lockyer, et al, Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals Case No. 05-56467 - $536,000
Craig and Wendy Humphries were arrested on suspicion of
having physically abused their teenage daughter. When the
AB 1714
Page 2
criminal case was dismissed, the couple obtained a finding
of factual innocence.
Nevertheless, pursuant to the Child Abuse Neglect and
Reporting Act (CANRA), the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
reported the couple to DOJ's Child Abuse Central Index
(CACI). CANRA requires such reporting when the
investigating authority determines that the claim of child
abuse is "not unfounded," regardless of whether the suspect
was actually charged or arrested. The Humphries sued the
Sheriff's Department and DOJ, alleging the CANRA was an
unconstitutional denial of due process.
After losing in the trial court on defense motions
seeking summary judgment, the Humphries appealed. The
Ninth Circuit reversed, finding CANRA and CACI to be
unconstitutional, because, in part, California offered no
procedure for the Humphries to remove their listing on the
database as suspected child abusers and thus clear their
names.
Prevailing civil rights suit plaintiffs are generally
entitled to attorney's fees. The Humphries argued to the
Ninth Circuit that they were entitled to over $1.2 million
in attorney's fees and expenses for the appellate portion
of the case. The state opposed this claim as premature.
The Ninth Circuit decided the claim was not premature, and
referred it to an Appellate Commissioner. In that
proceeding, the commissioner recommended the Humphries be
awarded the $592,580.92. Under the commissioner's
recommendation, $533,323 of the total would be charged to
the state.
The commissioner's fee recommendation was adopted by the
Ninth Circuit. Including anticipated interest, it is
projected that the amount due the Humphries under this
appellate attorney fee decision will be $536,000.
b) Gardner, et al, v. Schwarzenegger, et al, First District
Court of Appeal Case No. 125000 - $562,000
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 was
enacted by the voters as Proposition 36 in 2000. It
diverted certain nonviolent drug offenders to noncustodial
AB 1714
Page 3
drug counseling and treatment in lieu of incarceration. SB
1137 (Ducheny), Chapter 63, Statutes of 2006, authorizes
jail sanctions when nonviolent drug offenders violate
conditions of Proposition 36 probation. SB 1137 also
specifies that if any of its provisions were found
unconstitutional, the entire legislative measure would be
placed on the ballot in the next statewide election.
Plaintiffs sued to invalidate SB 1137 as inconsistent
with the purposes of Proposition 36. The trial court
agreed, finding that the provisions in SB 1137 relating to
short-term jail sanctions for offenders who violate their
Proposition 36 probation, and provisions excluding violent
offenders from probation, are inconsistent with the
purposes of Proposition 36.
The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's
analysis. The Court also found that Section 9 of SB 1137,
which allows for every provision of SB 1137 to be placed on
the ballot if any part is found unconstitutional, is itself
unconstitutional because it effectively provides for a
referendum without satisfying the legal prerequisites.
Plaintiffs sought attorney's fees. In 2009, plaintiffs
were awarded fees and costs in the amount of $425,821, plus
interest. Plaintiffs then pursued a claim for fees
incurred from litigating the underlying fee question itself
-- a fees-on-fees claim. This resulted in an additional
$83,834, plus interest. DOF has requested the total amount
of $562,000.00 for the underlying fee award, settlement of
the fees-on-fees claim, and accrued interest.
3)Related legislation. SB 911 (Kehoe), which also provides for
the appropriation of funds for state judgments and
settlements, is also before this committee today.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
FN: 0004739