BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1714
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1714 (Fuentes) - As Amended: May 25, 2010
Policy Committee:
AppropriationsVote:
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill appropriates $1,098,000 (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
This bill 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.
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
criminal case was dismissed, the couple obtained a finding
AB 1714
Page 2
of factual innocence.
Nevertheless, pursuant to the Child Abuse Neglect and
Reporting Act (CANRA), the L.A. 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
drug counseling and treatment in lieu of incarceration. In
2006, SB 1137, Chapter 63, authorized jail sanctions when
AB 1714
Page 3
nonviolent drug offenders violate conditions of Proposition
36 probation. SB 1137 also specified 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. The Department of Finance 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