GROSSMAN v. Russell A. Suzuki, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Hawaii, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-15356

Summary · law.co

Holding. Affirmed. The district court properly granted summary judgment because Grossman's claim for prospective relief was moot after she resigned from the union, her challenge to the exclusive bargaining arrangement failed to state a plausible constitutional claim, and her objection to dues collection could not succeed because she had voluntarily consented to the deductions under a valid union membership agreement.

Patricia Grossman brought a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging union membership dues deductions on First Amendment grounds. The district court granted summary judgment against her on all claims. On appeal, Grossman argued that the dues collection and Hawaii's exclusive bargaining arrangement for public employees violated her constitutional rights. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision on multiple grounds.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Mootness of prospective relief claims after union resignation
Constitutionality of exclusive bargaining arrangements for public employees
First Amendment rights regarding union dues deductions from voluntary membership agreements

Procedural posture

Grossman appealed the district court's summary judgment in her § 1983 First Amendment action challenging union membership dues and exclusive bargaining representation.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia Grossman appeals from the district courts 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 Grossmans claim seeking prospective relief because such claim is moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Assn, 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 Grossmans 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 courts intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021), controls the outcome of Grossmans First Amendment claim arising from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement. We affirm the district courts 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 Courts decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (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.