BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1714 (Fuentes)
Hearing Date: 6/28/2010 Amended: 6/16/2010
Consultant: Bob Franzoia Policy Vote: None
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 1714, an urgency measure, would appropriate
$1,490,000 from two funds to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
pay settlements in (1) Humphries v Lockyer, (2) Gardner v.
Schwarzenegger, and (3) Berg v. California Horse Racing Board.
Any funds appropriated in excess of the amount required for the
payment of these claims shall revert to the General Fund and to
the Horse Racing Fund on June 30 of the fiscal year in which the
settlement is paid.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
Appropriation $1,098 General
$392 Special*
* Horse Racing Fund
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to the committee's rules, the Suspense
File rule does not apply to the provisions of this bill as
judgments and settlements are considered valid obligations of
the state. Additionally, judgments and settlements may have
time sensitivity.
Humphries v. Lockyer, et al., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
($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 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 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
Court 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
Court that they were entitled to over $1.2 million
Page 2
AB 1714 (Fuentes)
in attorney's fees and expenses for the appellate portion of the
case. The state opposed this claim as premature. The Ninth
Circuit Court decided the claim was not premature and referred
it to an Appellate Commissioner. In that proceeding, the
commissioner recommended the Humphries be awarded $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 Court. Including anticipated interest, it is projected
that the amount due the Humphries under this appellate attorney
fee decision will be $536,000.
Gardner, et al., v. Schwarzenegger, et al., First District Court
of Appeal ($562,000)
Proposition 36 enacted the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention
Act of 2000. The act diverted certain nonviolent drug offenders
to noncustodial drug counseling and treatment in lieu of
incarceration. SB 1137 (Ducheny) Chapter 63/2006, authorized
jail sanctions when 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 of Appeal 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 pursed a claim for fees incurred for litigating
the underlying fee question itself, i. e., a fee on fee claims.
This resulted in an additional $83,834 plus interest. The
Department of Finance has requested the total amount of $562,000
for the underlying fee award, settlement of the fees on fees
claim, and accrued interest.
Berg v. California Horse Racing Board, Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento ($392,000)
Pamela A. Berg worked as a horse racing steward for the
California Horse Racing Board (board) from 1998 to 2006. Berg
filed her First Amended Complaint on March 20, 2009. Her
lawsuit alleged discrimination and harassment based on age and
gender, and for retaliation, in violation of the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA). In her deposition, Berg alleged that
board superiors gave improper preferences to less-
Page 3
AB 1714 (Fuentes)
qualified male racing stewards when making assignments to
California's larger race tracks. Berg also claimed the board's
failure to make such assignments, to honor her 2006-2007
contract, and to contract for her services after her 2006-2007
contract had expired, amounted to retaliation for her existing
discrimination claims in violation of the FEHA.
Following a review of the allegations and discovery, the board
reached settlement with Berg. By its terms, Berg will receive
$400,000, of which $100,000 will be in the form of a ten-year
annuity with an approximate cost to the board of $92,000.
The claim is to be paid from the Horse Racing Fund, and any
amounts in excess of that needed to pay the settlement,
including the purchase of the annuity, will revert to the Horse
Racing Fund. The Horse Racing Fund (8550-3153) receives
revenues from license fees.