BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 164


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          164 (Gomez)


          As Amended  August 17, 2015


          2/3 vote.  Urgency


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow,       |                    |
          |                |     |Bloom, Bonta,         |                    |
          |                |     |Calderon, Chang,      |                    |
          |                |     |Daly, Eggman,         |                    |
          |                |     |Gallagher,            |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                    |
          |                |     |Holden, Jones, Quirk, |                    |
          |                |     |Rendon, Wagner,       |                    |
          |                |     |Weber, Wood           |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Appropriates $517,255 from the General Fund (GF) and  
          $517,255 from the Dungeness Crab Account (DCA), within the Fish  
          and Game Preservation Fund, to the Department of Justice (DOJ)  
          to pay the Kevin Marilley, et al. v. McCamman settlement. 








                                                                     AB 164


                                                                    Page  2







          Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the  
          claims revert back to the appropriate Fund or Account. 


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, one-time GF appropriation of $517,255 and one-time  
          special fund appropriation of $517,255, to DOJ to pay the legal  
          settlement.


          COMMENTS:


          1)Purpose.  This bill is one of the bills carried by the Chairs  
            of the Assembly and Senate Appropriations Committees each year  
            to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements  
            approved by DOJ and the Department of Finance (DOF).  This  
            settlement was entered into lawfully by the state upon advice  
            of counsel (DOJ).  It is a binding state obligation.
          2)Background.  Kevin Marilley, et al. v. McCamman.  This case  
            involved a group of commercial fishermen who were not  
            California residents but fished in California waters.  A class  
            action suit was filed in the United States District Court  
            against John McCamman in his official capacity as  
            then-Director of the California Department of Fish and Game.  
            This case was litigated by DOJ's Natural Resources Section.


            The plaintiffs challenged California's commercial fishing  
            licensing statutes, which charged nonresident fishermen two to  
            three times more than the fees assessed on resident  
            competitors.  These fees were created through a series of  
            bills and were intended to close budget gaps and protect  
            natural resources.  The plaintiffs asserted that these  
            differential fees are unconstitutional under both the  
            Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection  
            Clause.  The fishermen and the state filed cross-motions for  








                                                                     AB 164


                                                                    Page  3





            summary judgment.


            The court found that the differential fees did violate the  
            Privileges and Immunities Clause and concluded that the state  
            failed to demonstrate a substantial state interest.  The court  
            found that the legislative history of the commercial fees  
            indicated that the increased fees had an economic  
            protectionist purpose, and declared that the state had failed  
            to prove that distinguishing between resident and nonresident  
            commercial fishing license fees advanced another important  
            state interest.  The court denied the state's motion and  
            granted the plaintiffs' motion.


            Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorney's fees and court  
            costs; a favorable settlement of these fees was proposed by  
            DOJ and accepted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.  This  
            claim represents this settlement, which is the final  
            disposition of the case.  The Department of Finance approved  
            an appropriation of the amount to be split between the GF and  
            the DCA. 


          3)Related legislation.


             a)   SB 302 (Lara), Statutes of 2015, appropriated $24.1  
               million from the GF, and $141,250 from the Athletic  
               Commission Fund, to specified departments for the payment  
               of four settlements.




             b)   AB 1615 (Gatto), Chapter 142, Statutes of 2014,  
               appropriated $2.9 million from the State Board of  
               Chiropractic Examiners' Fund and the GF to the DOJ for the  
               payment of two settlements. 








                                                                     AB 164


                                                                    Page  4









          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
          Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081FN: 0001414