Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02382/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02382-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRANCE MARSH; SANDI EDDE; 

THEODORE MENDOZA; REBECCA VAN 

ANTWERP; LINDSAY MACOMBER; 

KAREN JORDAN; STACEY 

DAVIDSON; BARBARA GROSSE; 

TAMELA DIOSO; and KISKA 

CARTER, individuals,

Plaintiffs,

v.

AFSCME LOCAL 3299, a labor 

organization; JANET 

NAPOLITANO, in her official 

capacity as President of the 

University of California; and 

XAVIER BECERRA, in his 

official capacity as Attorney 

General of California,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY 

DISCOVERY AND INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES

Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants under 

Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), 

ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs allege the University of California made 

unlawful deductions from Plaintiffs’ wages and remitted the funds

to AFSCME Local 3299 (the Union) without Plaintiffs’ consent. 

FAC ¶ 1. They also contend Defendants unduly restricted 

Plaintiffs’ ability to resign from the Union. Id. Plaintiffs 

seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and money damages for 

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

these alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights.

Defendant Xavier Becerra filed a motion to dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ claims. Becerra Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20. He 

also filed a motion to stay discovery and initial disclosures 

pending the Court’s resolution of that motion.1 Mot. to Stay, 

ECF No. 21. Defendants Janet Napolitano and the Union likewise 

filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims. Napolitano Mot. to 

Dismiss, ECF No. 23; AFSCME Local 3299 Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 

30. They also joined in Becerra’s motion to stay. AFSCME Local 

3299 Joinder, ECF No. 22; Napolitano Joinder, ECF No. 24.

Plaintiffs’ claims are premised upon the notion that Janus 

v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) confers an 

unqualified right to withdraw union membership and recoup 

previously-paid dues. See generally FAC. As Defendants argue, 

this Court rejected that notion in Cooley v. Cal. Statewide Law 

Enforcement Ass’n, 385 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1079-82 (E.D. Cal. 

2019). This Court is not alone in reaching that conclusion. See

Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n, No. 1:18-cv-1660-AWIEPB, 2020 WL 9499915, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020) (collecting 

cases). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part 

and denies in part Defendants’ motions to stay discovery and 

initial disclosures pending the resolution of the outstanding 

motions to dismiss. Because the Union concedes its motion to 

dismiss will rely on outside evidence related to Edde’s and 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for March 24, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Mendoza’s Union resignations, the Court allows Plaintiffs to seek 

reasonable discovery from the Union on that issue.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs are University of California employees. FAC 

¶ 20. Each of the ten Plaintiffs became Union members after 

signing Union membership cards or applications. FAC ¶¶ 30, 50, 

61, 77, 86, 98, 114, 123, 134, 147. At some point after the 

Supreme Court decided Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 

2448 (2018), Plaintiffs learned of the decision and tried to 

resign from the Union. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 63, 125, 144. 

Plaintiffs struggled to terminate their memberships within the

Union’s designated time period. See generally FAC ¶¶ 29-156. 

Plaintiffs allege Sections 1157.12 and 1157.3 of the 

California Government Code are to blame for the difficulties they 

faced in withdrawing Union membership and terminating their Union 

dues. FAC ¶¶ 168-72. Section 1157.3 permits public employees to 

authorize deductions from their salaries to pay union membership 

dues. Cal. Gov. Code § 1157.3(a). Once an employee authorizes a 

deduction covered by subsection a, the public employer must honor 

it. Cal. Gov. Code § 1157.3(b). Section 1157.12 then regulates

how public employers (other than the state) manage these 

deduction authorizations. In relevant part, it requires an 

employer to direct an employee’s request to cancel or change a 

deduction to the “employee organization”—in this case, the Union. 

Cal. Gov. Code § 1157.12(b).

To date, at least eight of the ten Plaintiffs were able to 

resign from the Union. FAC ¶¶ 41, 81, 91, 103, 108, 117, 128, 

140, 153. And at least two of the Plaintiffs no longer pay any 

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

dues. FAC ¶¶ 58, 121. 

II. OPINION

A party may request an order that stays discovery “pending 

the resolution of a potentially dispositive motion such as a 

motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6).” Mlejnecky v. Olympus Imaging America, Inc., No. 2:10-

cv-02630, 2011 WL 489743, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011). The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for “automatic” 

or “blanket” stays of discovery in the face of potentially

dispositive motions. Id. But district courts may nonetheless

exercise “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Id.

(quoting Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 

1988)). In exercising this discretion, courts have granted stays 

of discovery pending the resolution of a potentially dispositive 

motion when the movant satisfies both prongs of a two-part test. 

Id. at *6 (collecting cases). 

First, the pending motion “must be potentially dispositive 

of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the issue at which 

discovery is aimed.” Id. As Defendants argue, their motions to 

dismiss are potentially dispositive of the entire case. See

Becerra Mot. to Stay at 5-9; Napolitano Joinder at 2-3; AFSCME 

Local 3299 Joinder at 5-6. Defendants move to dismiss all of 

Plaintiffs’ claims. The arguments Defendants raise in their

motions mirror those that have already been heard and accepted by 

several other district courts in cases that are extremely similar

this one. See Napolitano Joinder at 2-3 (collecting cases); 

AFSCME Local 3299 Joinder at 5-6 (collecting cases). 

Indeed, this Court recently dismissed a comparable suit at 

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

the motion-to-dismiss stage. In Cooley v. Cal. Statewide Law 

Enforcement Ass’n, a union member brought a putative class action 

against Becerra and two law enforcement unions because the unions 

would not allow him to resign and stop paying dues without 

adhering to the formal resignation process. 385 F. Supp. 3d at 

1078. This Court found that Janus, 138 S. Ct. at 2486 did not 

announce the rights plaintiff sought to enforce and dismissed the 

suit in its entirety. Cooley, 385 F. Supp. 3d at 1078. 

Plaintiffs do not attempt to reconcile this Court’s decision in 

Cooley with the relief they now seek. Nor do they address any of 

the recent district court cases that have categorically rejected 

their theories of First and Fourteenth Amendment liability. See

Opp’n at 7-11. Instead, Plaintiffs defend their claims by 

extrapolating from dicta and overly-broad legal principles pulled 

from Janus and pre-Janus cases. See id. The Court finds 

Defendants have shown their pending motions to dismiss are 

potentially dispositive of the entire suit. 

Second, “the court must determine whether the pending, 

potentially dispositive motion can be decided absent additional 

discovery.” Mlejnecky, 2011 WL489743, at *6. As Becerra and 

Napolitano argue, their defenses to Plaintiffs’ suit are 

“entirely legal in nature.” Becerra Mot. to Stay at 9; see also

Napolitano Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 23-1. Plaintiffs disagree, 

arguing they need additional discovery regarding (1) whether they 

voluntarily signed the Union membership agreements, and (2) 

Defendants’ past and present dues and/or fee deduction procedure. 

Opp’n at 6, 19-20. Plaintiffs fail, however, to explain how 

additional fact-finding on either of these two issues would 

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

assist the Court in resolving the arguments raised in Defendants’

motions to dismiss—particularly those surrounding justiciability. 

See Reply at 2-3. The Court agrees with each of the arguments 

raised in Becerra’s reply brief on this issue. Id.

The Union concedes it will rely on information outside the 

complaint in its motion to dismiss. AMFSCE Local 3299 at 6. 

Specifically, this evidence relates to the Union’s confirmation

that Edde and Mendoza terminated their Union membership. Id. 

The Union represents it will not oppose “discovery limited to 

that issue.” With this caveat, the Court finds Defendants are 

entitled to a stay of discovery and initial disclosures pending 

the Court’s resolution of their motions to dismiss. 

III. ORDER

The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’ 

motion to stay discovery and initial disclosures pending the 

resolution of the outstanding motions to dismiss. The Court 

stays discovery and initial disclosures for Defendants Becerra 

and Napolitano. But because the Union concedes its motion to 

dismiss will rely on documents related to Edde’s and Mendoza’s 

union resignations, the Court allows Plaintiffs to seek 

reasonable discovery from the Union on that narrow issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB Document 35 Filed 03/26/20 Page 6 of 6