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