From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Brown

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 27, 2021
No. 19-35191 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021)

Opinion

No. 19-35191

04-27-2021

CHE' S. COOK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATE BROWN, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Oregon; KATY COBA, in her official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services, Defendants, and OREGON AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 75, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01085-AA MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Che' S. Cook, Clifford H. Elliott, Bethany Harrington, William Lehner, Carmen Lewis, and Trudy Metzger appeal from the district court's summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also known as fair share fees) paid to Oregon American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME") Council 75. 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, No. 19-1130, 2021 WL 231555 (Jan. 25, 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment 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 (2018). Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1097-99 ("[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law.").

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).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Cook v. Brown

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Apr 27, 2021
No. 19-35191 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021)
Case details for

Cook v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:CHE' S. COOK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KATE BROWN, in her…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 27, 2021

Citations

No. 19-35191 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2021)

Citing Cases

The Estate of Esche v. Renown Reg'l Med. Ctr.

, the Court was mostly only able to locate decisions applying that exception to a similar factual context as…