BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1615
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1615 (Gatto)
As Amended May 15, 2014
2/3 vote. Urgency
APPROPRIATIONS 12-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Holden, | | |
| |Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Ridley-Thomas, Weber | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Specifically, this bill :
1)Appropriates $2.7 million from the State Board of Chiropractic
Examiners' Fund to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay the
settlement in Arbuckle v California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners, et al. (Court of Appeal, Third District,
California, 2013 WL 3467054). Any funds appropriated in excess
of the amounts required for payment of these claims revert to
the chiropractic fund.
2)Appropriates $157,000 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the
judgment in Planning and Conservation League v. State, et al.
(Superior Court, Alameda County, 2013, No. RG12626904). Any
funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the
payment of this claim revert to the General Fund.
3)Contains and urgency clause allowing the provisions of the
bill to take effect immediately.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)One-time special fund appropriation of $2,698,000 to DOJ to
pay a legal settlement.
2)One-time General Fund (GF) appropriation of $157,000 to DOJ to
pay a legal settlement.
AB 1615
Page 2
COMMENTS :
1)Rationale. This bill is one of the bills carried by the chairs
of the Appropriations Committee each year to provide
appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by DOJ
and the Department of Finance (DOF). These settlements were
entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel
(DOJ). They are binding state obligations.
2)Case Background.
a) In Arbuckle v. California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners, et al., the lawsuit resulted from a
whistleblower complaint filed June 17, 2002. The complaint
was filed by a Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board)
employee, who alleged the Board chair failed to pay her
license renewal fee and that the Board failed to take
action against the chair for practicing without an active
license. On January 27, 2003, the State Personnel Board
(SPB) filed a Notice of Findings that recommended dismissal
of the complaint. The plaintiff failed to file a petition
for hearing and the Notice of Findings was adopted by the
SPB.
On February 21, 2003, Arbuckle filed a civil action
against the Board, alleging various unlawful retaliations
related to the whistleblower complaint. On February 25, 2011,
and after several appeals, the Board was ordered to pay
$2,106,201 ($1,175,000 judgment, $926,452 attorneys' fees, and
$4,749 plaintiff's costs and disbursements), along with
interest (7% per year) from July 28, 2010 (the date of the
original jury verdict). The estimated interest from July 28,
2010, to July 31, 2014, is $591,757.45. The Board's appeal
failed. All appeals for the Board have been exhausted and the
judgment is final.
b) In Planning and Conservation League v. State, $157,000
($155,000 for attorneys' fees and $395 for costs, plus
interest accrued) represents the judgment granted in favor
of the Planning and Conservation League against the
Controller. The lawsuit involved a constitutional
challenge to judicial review provisions in AB 900
(Buchanan), Chapter 354, Statutes of 2011, which provides
AB 1615
Page 3
for expedited judicial review of challenges to
"environmental leadership projects." The judgment in the
case declared Public Resources Code Section 21185,
subdivision (a)(1), enacted as part of AB 900, to be
facially unconstitutional. Public Resources Code Section
21185 required California Environmental Quality Act
challenges to environmental leadership projects to be filed
directly in the Court of Appeal. The judgment enjoins the
State Controller from spending funds to implement the code
provision. AB 900 was amended following the ruling in the
Planning and Conservation League v State, et al. case and
now allows such challenges to be brought in any court with
jurisdiction to hear writ petitions, including superior
courts.
Plaintiffs initially sought almost $700,000 in attorneys'
fees, but the court ruled the fee request was not
reasonable.
3)Related Legislation.
a) AB 234 (Gatto), Chapter 449, Statutes of 2013,
appropriated $20.7 million to pay for two settlements.
b) SB 371 (De Le�n), Chapter 9, Statutes of 2013,
appropriated $15.6 million to pay for two settlements.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
FN: 0003544