Opinion
20-15356
07-29-2021
PATRICIA GROSSMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HAWAII GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 152, AFL-CIO; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and RUSSELL A. SUZUKI, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Hawaii, Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00493-DKW-RT
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Patricia Grossman appeals from the district court's summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a decision on cross motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grossman's claim seeking prospective relief because such claim is moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 891 F.3d 1206, 1211-15 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief moot when they resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future).
The district court properly dismissed Grossman's First Amendment claim challenging the exclusive bargaining representation arrangement for Hawaii public employees because Grossman failed to allege a plausible claim. See Mentele v. Inslee, 916 F.3d 783, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that exclusive bargaining arrangement is constitutionally permissible); Bain, 891 F.3d at 1211 (setting forth standard of review for motion to dismiss).
The parties agree that this court's intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021), controls the outcome of Grossman's First Amendment claim arising from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement. We affirm the district court's summary judgment because Grossman affirmatively and voluntarily consented to the deduction of union dues. See Belgau, 975 F.3d at 950-52 (concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), did not extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon under validly entered union membership agreements).
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.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.