Existing law requires the Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, to report certain claims, settlements, and judgments against the state to the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Appropriations or the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Existing law requires the chairperson to introduce legislation appropriating funds for the payment of the claims, settlements, and judgments.

This bill would appropriate $36,555,686.61 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice to pay the judgment and any applicable interest or settlement in specified cases.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, to report certain claims, settlements, and judgments against the state to the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Appropriations or the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Existing law requires the chairperson to introduce legislation appropriating funds for the payment of the claims, settlements, and judgments.

This bill would appropriate $36,555,686.61 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice to pay the judgment and any applicable interest or settlement in specified cases.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Attorney General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, to report certain claims, settlements, and judgments against the state to the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Appropriations or the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Existing law requires the chairperson to introduce legislation appropriating funds for the payment of the claims, settlements, and judgments.

This bill would appropriate $36,470,547.01 $36,555,686.61 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice to pay the judgment and any applicable interest or settlement in specified cases.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Attorney General General, who is the head of the Department of Justice, to pay report certain claims, settlements, and judgments against the state. state to the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Appropriations or the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. Existing law requires the chairperson to introduce legislation appropriating funds for the payment of the claims, settlements, and judgments.

This bill would appropriate $235,400 $36,470,547.01 from the General Fund to the Attorney General Department of Justice to pay the settlement in a specified case. cases.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Attorney General to pay certain claims, settlements, and judgments against the state.

This bill would state that it appropriates an unspecified amount appropriate $235,400 from the General Fund to the Attorney General to pay an undesignated judgment. the settlement in a specified case.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law requires the Attorney General to pay certain judgments against the state.

This bill would state that it appropriates an unspecified amount from the General Fund to the Attorney General to pay an undesignated judgment.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1187

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/27/16

AYES: Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara

SENATE FLOOR: 30-5, 6/30/16

AYES: Allen, Bates, Berryhill, Block, Cannella, De León, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Nguyen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Wieckowski

NOES: Anderson, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak

NO VOTE RECORDED: Beall, Fuller, Huff, Runner, Wolk

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-3, 8/18/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill appropriates $36.6 million from the General Fund to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the payment of two legal settlements. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for payment of the claims would revert to the General Fund.

Assembly Amendments add a recently-approved claim to pay a $36.3 million judgment against the state settled in favor of the Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation.

ANALYSIS: This bill is one of several annual bills carried by the chairs of the Appropriations Committees to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements and claims against the state that are approved by DOJ and the Department of Finance (DOF). The settlements specified in this bill were entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ), and they are binding state obligations.

This bill appropriates General Fund revenues related to the following:

Settlement agreement for Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS154128) $220,000 settlement, plus interest, payable from the General Fund. This claim is the result of litigation involving a California Public Records Act dispute. Petitioners, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Land Trust) sought records from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) with the goal of proving that the Commission had misused public grant funds in its management of a restoration project.

The Commission responded by saying that the majority of the records sought regarding the project were in the possession of a separate, nongovernmental entity: a private non-profit called the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (Foundation). The Land Trust alleged that these two entities (the Commission and the Foundation) were virtually identical, with shared staff and a joint work plan, and that the Foundation should be subject to Public Records Act requests relating to that partnership. The Land Trust was told that only a subset of the requested records would be disclosed, and in response, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February of 2015.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court found in favor of the Land Trust, awarding attorney’s fees and compelling the Commission to disclose certain Foundation documents that the Court declared to be public records, but not all documents requested by the Land Trust. Attorneys for DOJ collaborated with counsel for the Commission to negotiate a settlement of $220,000 for the payment of a portion of the Land Trust’s attorney’s fees and costs. The agreement also provides for the payment of interest on the settlement amount at a rate of 7 percent per annum, calculated daily from March 1, 2016, the date the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision.

This bill provides an appropriation that includes the settlement amount of $220,000 plus $15,400, or the equivalent of a full year of interest payment. Staff notes that about half of the allotted interest amount will revert to the General Fund, assuming the bill is approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor by September.

Judgment against the state in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et. al. (United States District Court for the Southern District, Case No. 09CV1955) $36,235,147.01 judgment, plus interest, payable from the General Fund. In September, 2009, Pauma sued the State seeking rescission of its 2004 amended Triable-State gaming compact (2004 Amendment). In support of is rescission claim, Pauma alleged that the State misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses available under the parties' previous 1999 Tribal-State gaming compact. (1999 Compact) when the State communicated that the license pool was exhausted December, 2003. Pauma claimed that the misrepresentation induced it to enter into the 2004 Amendment, which contained higher fees than the 1999 Compact. In support of the Pauma's claim that it was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment as a result of the misrepresentation, Pauma relied on a 2009 district court decision in another case, Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California, in which the court determined that the 1999 Compact did in fact authorize more licenses than the state said were available. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Colusa decision.

In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment to Pauma, finding that, pursuant to the Colusa II decision, the State had misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses under the 1999 Compact and that Pauma had been induced to enter into the 2004 Amendments as a result. The district court thus ordered the 2004 Amendment rescinded and Pauma restored to its 1999 Compact's license fee provisions, resulting in a refund of $36,235,147.01, plus $85,139.60 in interest, due to Pauma from the State, representing the total fees Pauma paid the Sate under the 2004 Amendment over what it would have paid had it remained under the 1999 Compact.

The state appealed the summary judgment in favor of Pauma. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision upholding the district court's summary judgment in favor of Pauma on the misrepresentation claim. The court upheld the monetary award against the state, though the court regarded the monetary relief as restitution flowing from rescission of the 2004 Amendment rather than specific performance, and found that the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from monetary restitution awards by express waiver language in the compacts.

The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and the court denied the State’s petition on June 27, 2016. All avenues of appeal having been exhausted, the judgment is final and the sum of $36,320,286.61 is due and payable to Pauma.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• One-time appropriation of $235,400 in 2016-17 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement related to Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
• One time appropriation of $35,320,286.61 in 2016-17 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the summary judgment and any applicable interest in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et. al.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/16)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/16)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-3, 8/18/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Chávez, Grove, Harper

NO VOTE RECORDED: Frazier, Beth Gaines, Roger Hernández

Prepared by:

8/19/16 20:05:01

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:

Author:(Lara)

As Amended Ver:

2/3 vote. Urgency

SENATE VOTE: 30-5

SUMMARY: Appropriates $36.6 million from the General Fund (GF) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay two legal settlements, as follows:

1. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, $235,400; and
2. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et al., $36.3 million.

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

FISCAL EFFECT: One-time GF appropriation of $36,555,686.11 to DOJ for the two legal settlements.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill 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). These settlements were entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ). They are binding state obligations.
2. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, $235,400. This claim is the result of litigation involving a California Public Records Act (PRA) dispute. Petitioners, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Land Trust) sought records from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) with the goal of proving that the Commission had misused public grant funds in its management of a restoration project.

The Commission responded by saying that the majority of the records sought regarding the project were in the possession of a separate, nongovernmental entity: a private non-profit called the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (Foundation). The Land Trust alleged that these two entities (the Commission and the Foundation) were virtually identical, with shared staff and a joint work plan, and that the Foundation should be subject to PRA requests relating to that partnership. The Land Trust was told that only a subset of the requested records would be disclosed, and in response, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February of 2015.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court found in favor of the Land Trust, awarding attorney's fees and compelling the Commission to disclose certain Foundation documents that the Court declared to be public records, but not all documents requested by the Land Trust. Attorneys for DOJ collaborated with counsel for the Commission to negotiate a settlement of $220,000 for the payment of a portion of the Land Trust's attorney's fees and costs. The agreement also provides for the payment of interest on the settlement amount at a rate of 7% per annum, calculated daily from March 1, 2016, the date the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision.

This bill provides an appropriation that includes the settlement amount of $220,000 plus $15,400, or the equivalent of a full year of interest payment. A portion of the interest amount will revert to the General Fund, assuming the bill is enacted this month.

1. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et al., $36.2 million. In September, 2009, Pauma sued the State seeking rescission of its 2004 amended Triable-State gaming compact (2004 Amendment). In support of is rescission claim, Pauma alleged that the State misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses available under the parties' previous 1999 Tribal-State gaming compact. (1999 Compact) when the State communicated that the license pool was exhausted December, 2003. Pauma claimed that the misrepresentation induced it to enter into the 2004 Amendment, which contained higher fees than the 1999 Compact. In support of the Pauma's claim that it was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment as a result of the misrepresentation, Pauma relied on a 2009 district court decision in another case, Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California, in which the court determined that the 1999 Compact did in fact authorize more licenses than the state said were available. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Colusa decision.

In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment to Pauma, finding that, pursuant to the Colusa II decision, the State had misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses under the 1999 Compact and that Pauma had been induced to enter into the 2004 Amendments as a result. The district court thus ordered the 2004 Amendment rescinded and Pauma restored to its 1999 Compact's license fee provisions, resulting in a refund of $36,235,147.01, plus $85,139.60 in interest, due to Pauma from the State, representing the total fees Pauma paid the Sate under the 2004 Amendment over what it would have paid had it remained under the 1999 Compact.

The state appealed the summary judgment in favor of Pauma. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision upholding the district court's summary judgment in favor of Pauma on the misrepresentation claim. The court upheld the monetary award against the state, though the court regarded the monetary relief as restitution flowing from rescission of the 2004 Amendment rather than specific performance, and found that the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from monetary restitution awards by express waiver language in the compacts.

The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and the court denied the State’s petition on June 27, 2016. All avenues of appeal having been exhausted, the judgment is final and the sum of $36,320,286.61 is due and payable to Pauma.

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081 FN: 0003952

Date of Hearing: August 10, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1187

Author:(Lara) – As Amended Ver:August 3, 2016

Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This urgency bill appropriates $36.5 million from the General Fund (GF) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to pay two legal settlements, as follows:

1. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, $235,400; and
2. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et al., $36.2 million.

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

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time GF appropriation of $36,470,547.01 to DOJ for the two legal settlements. However, this figure does not include $85,139.60 in interest for the Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation settlement. The GF appropriation will need to be increased to $36.6 million, and the Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation settlement total will be $36.3 million.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill 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). These settlements were entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ). They are binding state obligations.
2. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, $235,400. This claim is the result of litigation involving a California Public Records Act (PRA) dispute. Petitioners, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Land Trust) sought records from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) with the goal of proving that the Commission had misused public grant funds in its management of a restoration project.

The Commission responded by saying that the majority of the records sought regarding the project were in the possession of a separate, nongovernmental entity: a private non-profit called the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (Foundation). The Land Trust alleged that these two entities (the Commission and the Foundation) were virtually identical, with shared staff and a joint work plan, and that the Foundation should be subject to PRA requests relating to that partnership. The Land Trust was told that only a subset of the requested records would be disclosed, and in response, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February of 2015.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court found in favor of the Land Trust, awarding attorney’s fees and compelling the Commission to disclose certain Foundation documents that the Court declared to be public records, but not all documents requested by the Land Trust. Attorneys for DOJ collaborated with counsel for the Commission to negotiate a settlement of $220,000 for the payment of a portion of the Land Trust’s attorney’s fees and costs. The agreement also provides for the payment of interest on the settlement amount at a rate of 7 percent per annum, calculated daily from March 1, 2016, the date the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision.

This bill provides an appropriation that includes the settlement amount of $220,000 plus $15,400, or the equivalent of a full year of interest payment. A portion of the interest amount will revert to the General Fund, assuming the bill is enacted this month.

1. Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. State of California, et al., $36.2 million. In September, 2009, Pauma sued the State seeking rescission of its 2004 amended Triable-State gaming compact (2004 Amendment). In support of is rescission claim, Pauma alleged that the State misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses available under the parties’ previous 1999 Tribal-State gaming compact. (1999 Compact) when the State communicated that the license pool was exhausted December, 2003. Pauma claimed that the misrepresentation induced it to enter into the 2004 Amendment, which contained higher fees than the 1999 Compact. In support of the Pauma’s claim that it was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment as a result of the misrepresentation, Pauma relied on a 2009 district court decision in another case, Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California, in which the court determined that the 1999 Compact did in fact authorize more licenses than the state said were available. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Colusa decision.

In 2014, the district court granted summary judgment to Pauma, finding that, pursuant to the Colusa II decision, the State had misrepresented the number of gaming device licenses under the 1999 Compact and that Pauma had been induced to enter into the 2004 Amendments as a result. The district court thus ordered the 2004 Amendment rescinded and Pauma restored to it’s 1999 Compact’s license fee provisions, resulting in a refund of $36,235,147.01 due to Pauma from the State, representing the total fees Pauma paid the Sate under the 2004 Amendment over what it would have paid had it remained under the 1999 Compact.

The state appealed the summary judgment in favor of Pauma. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision upholding the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Pauma on the misrepresentation claim. The court upheld the monetary award against the state, though the court regarded the monetary relief as restitution flowing from rescission of the 2004 Amendment rather than specific performance, and found that the State had waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from monetary restitution awards by express waiver language in the compacts.

The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, and the court denied the State’s petition on June 27, 2016. All avenues of appeal having been exhausted, the judgment is final and the sum of $36,235,147.01 is due and payable to Pauma.

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1187

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/27/16

AYES: Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

NO VOTE RECORDED: Lara

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill appropriates $235,400 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the payment of a specified settlement. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for payment of the claim would revert to the General Fund.

ANALYSIS: This bill is one of several annual bills carried by the chairs of the Appropriations Committees to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by DOJ and the Department of Finance (DOF). The settlement specified in this bill was entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ), and it is a binding state obligation.

This bill appropriates General Fund revenues related to the following:

Settlement agreement for Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission. (Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS154128) $220,000 settlement, plus interest, payable from the General Fund. This claim is the result of litigation involving a California Public Records Act dispute. Petitioners, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Land Trust) sought records from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) with the goal of proving that the Commission had misused public grant funds in its management of a restoration project.

The Commission responded by saying that the majority of the records sought regarding the project were in the possession of a separate, nongovernmental entity: a private non-profit called the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (Foundation). The Land Trust alleged that these two entities (the Commission and the Foundation) were virtually identical, with shared staff and a joint work plan, and that the Foundation should be subject to Public Records Act requests relating to that partnership. The Land Trust was told that only a subset of the requested records would be disclosed, and in response, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February of 2015.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court found in favor of the Land Trust, awarding attorney’s fees and compelling the Commission to disclose certain Foundation documents that the Court declared to be public records, but not all documents requested by the Land Trust. Attorneys for DOJ collaborated with counsel for the Commission to negotiate a settlement of $220,000 for the payment of a portion of the Land Trust’s attorney’s fees and costs. The agreement also provides for the payment of interest on the settlement amount at a rate of 7 percent per annum, calculated daily from March 1, 2016, the date the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision.

This bill provides an appropriation that includes the settlement amount of $220,000 plus $15,400, or the equivalent of a full year of interest payment. Staff notes that about half of the allotted interest amount will revert to the General Fund, assuming the bill is approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor by September.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• One-time appropriation of $235,400 in 2016-17 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement related to Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/28/16)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/28/16)

None received

Prepared by:

6/29/16 15:56:02

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

SB 1187 (Lara) - Claims against the state: appropriation

This bill does not meet the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Pursuant to the committee’s rules, the Suspense File rule does not apply to the provisions of this bill as judgments and settlement are considered valid obligations of the state. Additionally, judgments and settlements may have time sensitivity.

Bill Summary:

SB 1187, an urgency measure, would appropriate $235,400 from the General Fund to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the payment of a specified settlement. Any funds appropriated in excess of the amounts required for payment of the claim would revert to the General Fund.

Fiscal Impact:

• One-time appropriation of $235,400 in 2016-17 from the General Fund to DOJ to pay the settlement related to Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.

Background:

This bill is one of several annual bills carried by the chairs of the Appropriations Committees to provide appropriation authority for legal settlements approved by DOJ and the Department of Finance (DOF). The settlement specified in this bill was entered into lawfully by the state upon advice of counsel (DOJ), and it is a binding state obligation.

Proposed Law:

This urgency bill would appropriate General Fund revenues related to the following:

Settlement agreement for Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission.
(Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BS154128) $220,000 settlement, plus interest, payable from the General Fund.

This claim is the result of litigation involving a California Public Records Act dispute. Petitioners, the Ballona Wetlands Land Trust (Land Trust) sought records from the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission (Commission) with the goal of proving that the Commission had misused public grant funds in its management of a restoration project.

The Commission responded by saying that the majority of the records sought regarding the project were in the possession of a separate, nongovernmental entity: a private non-profit called the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation (Foundation). The Land Trust alleged that these two entities (the Commission and the Foundation) were virtually identical, with shared staff and a joint work plan, and that the Foundation should be subject to Public Records Act requests relating to that partnership. The Land Trust was told that only a subset of the requested records would be disclosed, and in response, filed a petition for writ of mandate in February of 2015.

In March of 2016, the Superior Court found in favor of the Land Trust, awarding attorney’s fees and compelling the Commission to disclose certain Foundation documents that the Court declared to be public records, but not all documents requested by the Land Trust. Attorneys for DOJ collaborated with counsel for the Commission to negotiate a settlement of $220,000 for the payment of a portion of the Land Trust’s attorney’s fees and costs. The agreement also provides for the payment of interest on the settlement amount at a rate of 7 percent per annum, calculated daily from March 1, 2016, the date the Court issued its Final Statement of Decision.

This bill provides an appropriation that includes the settlement amount of $220,000 plus $15,400, or the equivalent of a full year of interest payment. Staff notes that about half of the allotted interest amount will revert to the General Fund, assuming the bill is approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor by September.

Related Legislation:

AB 1693 (Gonzalez), which is currently pending on the Senate Floor, would appropriate $10.55 million from the General Fund to DOJ for the payment of a judgment and a settlement in two lawsuits against the state.

SB 302 (Lara), Chapter 5/2015, appropriated approximately $24.2 million from specified funds for the payment of four settlements.

AB 164 (Gomez), Chapter 394/2015, appropriated approximately $2.7 million from specified funds to DOJ for the payment of two settlements.

-- END --