BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1615|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1615
Author: Gatto (D)
Amended: 5/15/14 in Assembly
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 66-0, 5/27/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Claims against the state: payment
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill appropriates $2,698,000 from the State
Board of Chiropractic Examiner's Fund and $157,000 from the
General Fund to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay two
settlements. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts
required for payment of these claims shall revert to the
respective funds.
ANALYSIS : This bill is one of several annual bills carried by
the chairs of the Appropriations Committees 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.
This bill appropriates special fund and General Fund revenues to
DOJ to pay the following settlements:
CONTINUED
AB 1615
Page
2
Arbuckle v. California Board of Chiropractic Examiners, et al.
(Court of Appeal, Third District, California, 2013 WL 3467054)
$2,698,000 Settlement, payable from the State Board of
Chiropractic Examiner's Fund.
This lawsuit resulted from a whistleblower complaint filed June
17, 2002. The complaint was filed by a Board of Chiropractic
Examiners (Board) employee, Carole Arbuckle, who alleged that
the Board and former executive officer took adverse employment
actions against her in retaliation for reporting that the
Board's chair had 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 filed a Notice of Findings that recommended
dismissal of the whistleblower retaliation complaint. The
plaintiff failed to file a petition for hearing and the Notice
of Findings was adopted by the State Personnel Board.
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 a
number of appeals, the court awarded a final judgment in favor
of Arbuckle and ordered the Board to pay $2,106,201 ($1,175,000
for the judgment, $926,452 in attorneys' fees, and $4,749 for
plaintiff's costs and disbursements), plus interest at a rate of
7% per year from the date of the original jury verdict (July 28,
2010). The estimated interest from July 28, 2010 to July 31,
2014, is $591,757.45. The Board has exhausted all appeals in
the case and the judgment is final.
Planning and Conservation League v. State
(Super Ct., Alameda County, 2013, No. RG 12626904)
$157,000 Settlement, payable from the General Fund.
This settlement 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 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. This provision required California
CONTINUED
AB 1615
Page
3
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. This statute was amended by SB
743 (Steinberg, Chapter 386, Statutes of 2013) following the
ruling in the Planning and Conservation League case and now
allows such challenges to be brought in any court with
jurisdiction to hear writ petitions, including superior courts.
The plaintiffs initially sought almost $700,000 in attorneys'
fees, but the court ruled the fee request was not reasonable,
and instead determined that a more reasonable amount for
attorneys' fees was $155,000. The total settlement amount of
$157,000 in the bill includes $155,000 for attorneys' fees, $395
for other costs, and accrued interest.
Related Legislation
AB 234 (Gatto, Chapter 449, Statutes of 2013) appropriated $20.7
million to DOJ to pay for two settlements.
SB 371 (De Leon, Chapter 9, Statutes of 2013), appropriated
$15.6 million to DOJ to pay for two settlements.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time appropriation of $2,698,000 in 2013-14 from the State
Board of Chiropractic Examiner's Fund to DOJ to pay the
settlement in Arbuckle v California Board of Chiropractic
Examiners, et al.
One-time appropriation of $157,000 in 2013-14 from the General
Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement in Planning and Conservation
League v. State, et al.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 66-0, 5/27/14
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Hall, Roger
CONTINUED
AB 1615
Page
4
Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Logue,
Lowenthal, Maienschein, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi,
Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Rodriguez, Salas, Skinner, Stone,
Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bigelow, Conway, Donnelly, Beth Gaines,
Harkey, Linder, Mansoor, Patterson, Quirk-Silva,
Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk, Vacancy
JA:nl 6/24/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****
CONTINUED