Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02176/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02176-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

----oo0oo----

CHRISTINE A. CUMMINGS, JANET

TAYLOR DARVAS, RICHARD K.

DEHART, CHRISTOPHER GARBANI,

PATRICIA A. MCCUMSEY, DANIEL

NOWALIS, CLAUDIA STEWART, 

and MONA YASSA, on behalf of

themselves and the class they

represent,

NO. CIV. S-99-2176 WBS KJM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AND/OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT 

ON REMAND

KATHLEEN CONNELL, Controller,

State of California; MARTY

MORGENSTERN, Director

California Department of

Personnel Administration,

Defendants; CALIFORNIA STATE

EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, LOCAL

1000; LOCAL 1000 SERVICE

EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,

AFL-CIO-CLC;

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The facts of this case are more fully discussed in the

various decisions issued by this court and the Ninth Circuit that

Case 2:99-cv-02176-WBS -KJM Document 270 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 5
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

The union has since been renamed and now goes by 1

“Service Employee International Union, Local 1000.”

2

the court has cited to below. For the purpose of resolving the

issue presented here, it is sufficient to recount only the

following facts.

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 class action arises from the

failure of defendant California State Employees Association

(“CSEA”) to provide non-union members with sufficient notice of 1

“fair share” fees pursuant to Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson,

475 U.S. 292, 310 (1986). On May 2, 2001, this court granted

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in part and awarded

partial restitution of withdrawn fees to all nonmembers. 

Cummings v. Connell, 177 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (E.D. Cal. 2001). On

appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld this court’s decisions to (1)

award summary judgment against the union (based on a finding that

its initial Hudson notices were deficient); (2) certify a class;

(3) award summary judgment in favor of defendants Kathleen

Connell and Marty Morgenstern; (4) deny plaintiffs’ request for a

permanent injunction; and (5) deny plaintiffs’ standing to

challenge the indemnification clauses. Cummings v. Connell, 316

F.3d 886, 891-99 (9th Cir. 2003) (Cummings I). However, the

Ninth Circuit “fail[ed] to see how plaintiffs suffered any

compensable harm (aside from nominal damages) from the initial

defective notice,” and held that “the district court went too far

in ordering partial restitution to all class members.” Id. at

894-95. Accordingly, the panel directed this court on remand to

award only nominal damages and adjust the court’s award of costs

and attorneys’ fees if appropriate. 

Case 2:99-cv-02176-WBS -KJM Document 270 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 5
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

In Cummings II, Ninth Circuit also (1) affirmed this 2

court’s decision to award nominal damages per constitutional

amendment violated (rather than per unconstitutional act) and (2)

reversed this court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

during the first appeal. Cummings, 402 F.3d at 948. The

decision further directed this court to redetermine “the award of

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the district court

portion of the proceedings . . . in light of the new nominal

damages award.” Id.; see also Cummings v. Connell, Nos. 03-

17095, 04-15154, 04-15186, slip op. at 12 (9th Cir. Apr. 24,

2006) (amending the mandate in Cummings II and referring

calculation of attorneys’ fees on plaintiffs’ cross-appeal

regarding attorneys’ fees to this court (to be determined once

this court redetermines the appropriate fee for the district

court proceedings)). However, neither party has yet noticed a

motion for redetermination of attorneys’ fees and consequently,

this matter is not now before this court. (See May 19, 2006

Joint Status Conf. Stmt. (professing to “have reached a tentative

accord” on the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to

plaintiffs’ counsel and noting that, upon client approval, the

parties intend to “file a Motion for Approval of a Class Notice

3

Awarding nominal damages required more than a

ministerial act on the part of this court because whether nominal

damages should be awarded to the whole class as a fictional

entity, to each class representative, or to each class member was

a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit. In resolving

this issue, the court reasoned that the most sound approach, one

that would ensure that nominal damages in a large class action

would actually remain nominal, was to award nominal damages in

the amount of $1.00 to each named class representative. Cummings

v. Connell, 281 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1191-92 (E.D. Cal. 2003). On

appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed and remanded the case once

more with instructions to award nominal damages to each class

member and to hold further proceedings to determine the impact of

that decision on this court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs. 

Cummings v. Connell, 402 F.3d 936, 945 (9th Cir. 2005) (Cummings

II). Pursuant to that decision, plaintiffs now bring this 2

Case 2:99-cv-02176-WBS -KJM Document 270 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 5
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

Re: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees within fourteen days after entry

of a judgment for nominal damages”); see also Gould v. Mut. Life

Ins. Co. of N.Y., 790 F.2d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that

once an appellate mandate has issued, a district court can

entertain post-judgment motions).

4

motion for summary judgment and/or amendment of judgment on

remand. Defendants have filed a statement of non-opposition.

II. Discussion

“On remand, a trial court can only consider ‘any issue

not expressly or impliedly disposed of on appeal.’” Vizcaino v.

U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Wash., 173 F.3d 713, 719 (9th

Cir. 1999) (quoting Firth v. United States, 554 F.2d 990, 993

(9th Cir. 1977)). In other words, when acting pursuant to an

appellate court’s mandate, this court “is bound by the decree as

the law of the case; and must carry it into execution . . . .” 

Id. (quoting In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247, 255

(1895) (alteration in original)). The court “cannot vary [the

mandate], or examine it for any other purpose than execution.” 

Id. Furthermore, the court “must implement both the letter and

the spirit of the mandate, taking into account the appellate

court’s opinion and the circumstances it embraces.” Id.

(emphasis added).

The issue before the court now is fairly

straightforward since the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in Cummings II

left open only a very narrow matter: the amount of nominal

damages to award to each class member. See Cummings v. Connell,

Nos. 03-17095, 04-15154, 04-15186, slip op. at 11 n.2 (9th Cir.

Apr. 24, 2006) (noting that the district court might award a

different amount per person on remand). In its first opinion

Case 2:99-cv-02176-WBS -KJM Document 270 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 5
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

addressing nominal damages, this court already expressed its

distaste for a nominal award of something less than $1.00 per

person. See Cummings, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 1192 n.7 (“The court

has considered, and rejects, the idea of awarding nominal damages

of something less than $1.00 to each class member. . . . [I]t

would cost defendants as much to cut 37,000 checks for $.01 each

as it would to cut 37,000 checks for $1.00 each, and the court

believes that an award of one penny would more trivialize

plaintiffs’ constitutional rights than vindicate them.”). 

Moreover, defendants do not oppose plaintiffs’ request that the

court award $1.00 to each member of the class that plaintiffs

represent. Accordingly, the court will award nominal damages in

the amount of $1.00 to each class member.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, in accordance with the

March 29, 2005 decision of the Ninth Circuit (as amended on May

17, 2005 and April 24, 2006) and the mandate issued on June 30,

2005, plaintiffs and each member of the class they represent are

awarded nominal damages to be paid in the amount of one dollar

($1.00) to each member of the class.

Counsel for plaintiffs is further ORDERED to prepare

and lodge a form of judgment consistent with this order and the

Ninth Circuit’s mandate.

DATED: June 20, 2006

Case 2:99-cv-02176-WBS -KJM Document 270 Filed 06/20/06 Page 5 of 5