Opinion
19-55692
01-26-2022
GEORGIA BABB; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 19, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00994-JLS-DFM, Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Georgia Babb, John J. Frangiamore, Jr., William Happ, Aaron Holbrook, Michelle Pecanic-Lee, David Schmus, and Abram Van Der Fluit appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also known as fair share fees) paid to California Teachers Association, United Teachers Los Angeles, and National Education Association. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 1265 (2021). We affirm.
The parties agree that this court's intervening decision in Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019), controls the outcome of this appeal.
The district court properly dismissed appellants' action because a public sector union can, as a matter of law, "invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it collected" prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018). Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1097-99, 1102-03 (explaining that plaintiffs' monetary relief claim was for damages and not restitution, but "[e]ven accepting Plaintiffs' restitutionary premise, the equities do not weigh in favor of requiring a refund of all agency fees collected pre-Janus").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Appellees' motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 45) is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellants' request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.