BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 406
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 406 (Evans)
As Amended June 18, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :33-0
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Stone | |Holden, Jones, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Lowenthal |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes, until January 1, 2018, the Tribal Court
Civil Money Judgment Act (TCCMJA). Specifically, this bill ,
among other things:
1)Establishes, until January 1, 2018, the TCCMJA to govern the
procedures for applying and objecting to an application for
the recognition of tribal court money judgments, as defined,
of federally recognized Indian tribes in California state
courts. Specifies that to the extent not inconsistent with
the TCCMJA, the Code of Civil Procedure applies.
2)Requires specific information be included in the application
for recognition of the tribal court money judgment, which must
be signed under penalty of perjury, including the amount of
the award granted by the tribal court that remains unpaid and
any accrued interest. Specifies documents that must be
attached to the application, including a copy of the tribal
court rules of procedure pursuant to which the judgment was
entered; and a declaration under penalty of perjury by the
tribal court clerk, applicant, or applicant's attorney
stating, based on personal knowledge, that the underlying case
was conducted in compliance with those rules.
SB 406
Page 2
3)If no objections are timely filed, requires that the clerk
certify that no objections were timely filed, and requires
that a judgment be entered. Provides that the judgment
entered by the superior court must be based on and contain the
provisions and terms of the tribal court money judgment and
entered in the same manner, have the same effect, and be
enforceable in the same manner as any civil judgment, order,
or decree of a California court.
4)Requires the court to decline recognition and entry of a
tribal court money judgment in any of the following
circumstances:
a) The tribal court did not have personal jurisdiction over
the respondent;
b) The tribal court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction; or
c) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that
does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures
compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
5)Permits the court, in its discretion, to decline recognition
and entry of a tribal court money judgment on any of the
following grounds:
a) The defendant in the tribal court proceeding did not
receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to
enable the defendant to defend himself or herself;
b) The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the
losing party of an adequate opportunity to present his or
her case;
c) The judgment or the cause of action on which the
judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of
California or the United States (U.S.);
d) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive
judgment;
e) The proceeding in the tribal court was contrary to an
agreement between the parties under which the dispute in
question was to be determined otherwise than by proceedings
SB 406
Page 3
in that tribal court;
f) In the case of jurisdiction based on personal service
only, the tribal court was a seriously inconvenient forum
for the trial;
g) The judgment was rendered under circumstances that raise
substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering
court with respect to the judgment;
h) The specific proceeding in the tribal court leading to
the judgment was not compatible with the due process of
law; or
i) The judgment includes recovery for a claim of
defamation, unless the court determines that the defamation
law applied by the tribal court provided at least as much
protection for freedom of speech and the press as provided
by both the U.S. and California Constitutions.
6)Defines "due process" to include, but not be limited to, the
right to be represented by counsel, to receive reasonable
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to call and
cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence and argument
to an impartial decisionmaker.
7)Provides that, if objections have been timely filed, the
applicant has the burden of establishing that the tribal court
money judgment is entitled to recognition. If the applicant
has met the burden, shifts the burden to the party resisting
recognition to establish that a ground for nonrecognition
exists.
8)Permits the court, after notice to all parties, to attempt to
resolve any issues raised regarding a tribal court money
judgment by contacting the tribal court judge who issued the
judgment, as specified.
9)Excludes, until January 1, 2018, tribal courts from the
Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act
(UFCMJRA).
10)Requires, by January 1, 2017, the California Law Revision
Commission (CLRC) to conduct a study of the standards for
SB 406
Page 4
recognition of a tribal court or a foreign court judgment,
under the TCCMJA and the UFCMJRA and report its findings and
recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires, under federal law, that each state give full, faith
and credit to the public acts, records and judicial
proceedings of every other state.
2)Governs, through the UFCMJRA, the enforcement of judgments of
foreign countries within California courts. Defines
"foreign-country judgment" to mean a judgment of a court of a
foreign country, as otherwise defined, including a judgment by
any Indian tribe recognized by the United States.
3)Provides mandatory and discretionary grounds for
nonrecognition of a foreign country money judgment under the
UFCMJRA, which mirror the grounds set forth in this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Likely minor savings in court costs from streamlined
procedures for enforcing tribal court judgments.
2)Absorbable one-time cost to the CLRC for the study and report,
which will likely require the commission to reprioritize its
work on other topics that the Legislature has directed the
commission to study.
COMMENTS : This bill establishes the TCCMJA, a new procedural
framework for enforcement of tribal court money judgments under
procedures that are modeled on the procedures applicable to
judgments from other states, while still applying the principles
of comity consistent with existing law and the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision in Wilson v. Marchington, 127 F.3d 805
(1997). In doing so, the author states that the bill makes the
enforcement of these rights more efficient and economical for
both litigants and the courts.
The U.S. Constitution requires that each state give full, faith
and credit to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings
of every other state and territory. Thus a judgment in one
state can be fully enforced in any other state. A tribe,
SB 406
Page 5
however, is not another state and is, in fact, a sovereign
entity. Thus tribes are not required, under any standard, to
enforce state court judgments. State courts, with specific
exceptions, are not required to give tribal court judgments
full, faith and credit. Tribal judgments are generally treated
like judgments from other countries and are governed by comity.
Comity is "neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one
hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, on the other."
Any money judgment that is non-enforceable under existing law
would continue to be non-enforceable under this legislation -
this bill just simplifies the procedures for seeking enforcement
of a tribal court judgment. To that end, this bill, as now
amended, exactly tracks the UFCMJRA as to the grounds upon which
a California court either must deny recognition of a tribal
court order or may, in the court's discretion, deny such
recognition. The court must decline recognition if: 1) the
tribal court did not have either personal or subject matter
jurisdiction; or 2) the judgment was rendered under a judicial
system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures
compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
Additionally, the courts of this state have discretion to
decline recognition for any of nine reasons, including:
1)The defendant in the proceeding in the tribal court did not
receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable
the defendant to defend;
2)The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing
party of an adequate opportunity to present its case;
3)The judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on
which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy
of California or the U.S.;
4)In the case of jurisdiction based on personal service, the
tribal court was a seriously inconvenient forum;
5)The judgment was rendered under circumstances that raise
substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court
with respect to the judgment; or
6)The specific proceeding in the tribal court leading to the
SB 406
Page 6
judgment was not compatible with the due process of law.
Even a cursory review of the grounds for discretionary
nonrecognition raise legitimate questions as to the fairness and
due process provided in the underlying action and what should
the appropriate standard be for recognition in state court.
Thus, this bill appropriately requires the California Law
Revision Commission, by January 1, 2017, to conduct an in-depth
evaluation of both the TCCMJA and the UFCMJRA and the
appropriate level of due process that should be required from
foreign and tribal judgments. This bill sunsets the TCCMJA one
year later, to allow the Legislature to act, after consideration
of the Law Revisions Commission's study.
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916)
319-2334
FN: 0004320