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