BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1714|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1714
Author: Fuentes (D)
Amended: 6/30/10 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-1, 6/28/10
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Alquist, Corbett, Leno, Price, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Denham
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Wyland
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-1, 6/1/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Claims against the state: payment
SOURCE : Department of Justice
DIGEST : This bill appropriates $1,490,000 from two funds
to the Department of Justice 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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/30/10 add $20,000,000 to pay
the settlement of the government claims of Jacycee Dugard
and each of her two minor children against the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
CONTINUED
AB 1714
Page
2
ANALYSIS :
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 the Department
of Justice (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 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.
AB 1714
Page
3
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, 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 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.
AB 1714
Page
4
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-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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Appropriates $21,490,000
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/30/10)
Department of Justice (source)
Department of Finance
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon,
DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong,
Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick,
Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava,
AB 1714
Page
5
Nestande, Niello, Norby, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino,
Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Yamada, John A. Perez
NOES: Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Tom Berryhill, Audra Strickland, Vacancy
DLW:do 6/30/2010 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****