BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 164 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 164 (Gomez) As Amended September 2, 2015 2/3 vote. Urgency -------------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |80-0 |(August 24, |SENATE: | 40-0 |(September 9, | | | |2015) | | |2015) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: APPR. SUMMARY: Appropriates $2,217,255 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 Humphries v. County of Los Angeles and the Marilley v. McCamman settlements. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for the claims revert back to the appropriate Fund or Account. The Senate amendments add a one-time appropriation of $1,700,000 in 2015-16 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement in Humphries v. County of Los Angele.. FISCAL EFFECT: One-time GF appropriation of $2,217,255 and one-time special fund appropriation of $517,255, to DOJ to pay AB 164 Page 2 the legal settlement. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. This is one of the bills carried by the Chairs of the 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. a) Humphries v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. SACV 03-0697-JVS) $1,700,000 settlement, payable from the General Fund. The California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) formerly provided for the reporting of child abuse allegations that were "not unfounded" to the DOJ for inclusion in its Child Abuse Central Index (CACI). Plaintiffs in the Humphries case were parents of a child who accused them of child abuse, but the courts found the allegations to be untrue and charges against the parents were dismissed. The CANRA statutes did not include a process for removal of exonerated individuals accused of child abuse from the CACI, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department did not agree to remove them. Plaintiffs filed a case against the Attorney General and the County of Los Angeles, claiming that their constitutional due process rights had been violated because they had been deprived the right to challenge their inclusion in CACI. The district court dismissed their claims, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that holding on appeal and found that the continued listing of the plaintiffs in CACI violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, and filed a motion seeking over $3 million from the State. This claim for $1.7 million represents a settlement for attorneys' fees negotiated AB 164 Page 3 through mediation in federal court. b) 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 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 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. AB 164 Page 4 a) SB 302 (Lara), Chapter 5, 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. Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 FN: 0002351