N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B EC KY FISK,

Pla i ntiff,
and LINDA B OW M AN; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. JAY INSLEE, Gove rnor; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-35957 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05889-R B L
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2018 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R , M c KEOW

N, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED DEC 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Appe lla nts Linda B owm an, Natha

n i e l Isra e l, a

nd Susa n Nott a ppe a l the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to theState of W a shington a nd the Se rvic e Em

ploy e e s Inte rnationa l Union 775 (or “ SEIU” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d we a ffirm
. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we provide only a brie f
ove rvie w he re . Appe lla

nts a re form e r SEIU m e m

be rs. W he n the y e nrolle d in the union, the y

signe d m e m

b e rship c ards tha

t a uthoriz e d SEIU to de duc t union due s for at le a st a full y e ar an d provide d the Appe lla nts c o uld opt out of due s pa ym e nts only during a 15-da y window e a c h y e ar (the “ due s irre voc a bility provision” ). Ea c h of the Appe lla

nts re signe d from

the union be fore the i r due s a uthoriz ations e la

pse d,
and the union c ontinue d to de duc t due s from the ir pa y c he c ks until the full y e ar ha d pa sse d or the a

ppropria te 15-da y window a

rrive d. Appe lla

nts brought a

puta tive
c la ss a c tion a l le ging viola t ions of the ir First a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights be c a use the y we re una ble to im m e d iate l y c e a se due s c o ntributions whe n the y re signe d. 1. Appe lla

nts’ non-da

m a ge s c la im s a

re not m oot. Although no c l a ss ha s be e n c e rtifie d a

nd SEIU a

n d the State hav e stoppe d de duc ting due s from Appe l la n ts, Appe lla

nts’ non-da

m a ge s c la im s are the sort of inhe re ntly tra nsitory
c la im s for whic h c ontinue d litiga tion is perm issible
. Se e Ge rste in v . Pugh , 420
2U.S. 103, 111 n.11 (1975) (de c iding c a se not m oot be c a u se the pla intiff’ s c la im would not la st “ long e nough for a distric t judge to c e rtify the c la ss” ); se e also C ounty of Riv e rside

v . Mc Laughlin , 500 U.S. 44, 52 (1991). Inde e d, c la i m s re ga rding thedue s irre voc a

bility provision would la st for a t m ost a y e ar, and we have pre v iously

e xpla ine d tha

t e ve n thre e y e ars is “ too short to allow for full judic ia l re vie w.” J

ohnson v . Ranc ho Santiago C mty . C o l l. Dist. , 623 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th C ir. 2010). Ac c ordingly , Appe l la nts’ non-da

m a ge s c l a im s a

re not m oot sim ply be c a use the union is no longe

r de duc ting fe e s from

Appe lla nts. 2. Appe lle e s ’ de duc tion of union due s in a c c orda nc e with them e m

b e rship
c ards’ due s irre voc a

bility provision doe s not viola

te Appe lla

nts’ First Am e ndm e nt rights. Although Appe lla n ts re signe d the ir m e m

be rship in theunion a

nd obje c te d to providing c ontinue d fina n c ia l support, the First Am e ndm e nt doe s not pre c lude the e nforc e m e n t

of “ l e ga l obliga

tions” tha t a re ba rga ine d-for and “ s e lf-im

p ose d” unde r state c o ntra c t la

w. C ohe n v . C ow le s Me dia C

o ., 501 U.S. 663, 668-71 (1991). The provisions a

uthoriz ing the withholding of due s a nd m aking tha

t
a uthoriz ation irre voc a

ble for c e rta in pe riods we re in c le ar, re a da ble ty p e on a sim ple one -pa ge form , we ll within the ke n of unre pre se nte d or la

y pa rtie s . M ore o ve r, te m

pora rily irre voc a

ble pa ym e nt a uthoriz ations a

re c om m on a nd
e nforc e a ble in m any

c onsum e r c ontra c ts— e .g., gy m m e m be rships or c e ll phone
3c ontra c ts— an d we c onc lude tha t unde r state c ontra c t la

w those provisions should be sim i la rly e nforc e a ble he re . Appe lla nts’ c om pla int e xpre ssly

c ha lle nge s only

the due s irre voc a

b ility provision a

nd the c o ntinue d de duc tion of due s a fte r Appe lla n ts re signe d. In the
wake of J anus v . Ame ric an Fe de ration of State , C ounty , and Munic i

pal Employ e e

s, C ounc il 31 , 138 S. C t. 2448 (2018), Appe l la nts now wish to a

rgue tha t the ir
c onse n t to thede duc tion of due s wa s im p e rm issiblefrom

the outse t a

nd viola te d the i r First Am e ndm e nt rights. Re solving this re vise d c la im

would re quire de te rm i ning whe the r Appe l la nts’ initia l a gre e m e nt with SEIU qualifie d a s a knowing, volunta

ry , a nd inte l lige nt wa i ve r. 1 Im porta ntly howe ve r, this c la im

is not properly

be fore us a

nd so we ne e d not
a ddre s s the a de qua c y

of Appe lla

nts’ puta tive wa ive rs. As Appe lla nts’ c o unse l him se lf a c knowle dge d at ora l argum e nt, this broad e r c la im is a de pa rture from

the
a c tua l a lle gations of thec om p la int, whic h wa s ne ve r am e nde d. Nowhe re in the
c om pla i nt do Appe lla

nts a lle ge that the y

did not initia

lly c onse nt to thedue s

1 W e have pre viously

e xpla ine d tha

t First Am e n dm e nt rights may be wa ive d only if the wa ive r is “ knowing, volunta ry and inte llige n t.” Le onard v . C lark , 12 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th C ir. 1994). Assum ing without de c iding tha

t c ontra c ts with SEIU, a public se c tor union, involve e nough sta

te a c t ion to im

p lic ate the First Am e ndm e nt, e ve ry e m

p loy e e ha s a

First Am e ndm e nt right not to fina n c ia lly support SEIU. Se e , e .g. , J anus , 138 S. C t. at 2486.

4de duc tions, nor did the y obje c t to a

ny fe e s de duc te d prior to the ir re s igna tions or
se e k re c ove ry of pre -re signa

tion due s de duc tions. Appe l la nts a re ne c e ssa

rily bound by the a lle gat i ons a

nd c l a im s in the ir c om

pla int. Se e Ec ologic al Rights Found. v . Pac . Gas &Ele c . C o ., 713 F.3d 502, 510-11 (9th C ir. 2013) (de c lining to
c onside r a

ne w a rgum e nt tha

t would e ffe c tive ly

qua lify a s a n atte m p t to a m e nd the ope rat ive c om

p l a int on a

ppe a l). B e c a

use Appe lla

nts’ c om pla int im plie dly
c onc e de s tha

t the y initia lly a gre e d to pa

y union due s a

n d only obje c ts to la

te r atte m pts to e sc a

pe the t e rm s of tha

t m e m be rship c ard a gre e m e nt, we ne e d not inquire into whe the r Appe lla n ts’ initia l de c ision to ente r into thea gre e m e nt c onstitute d a

n a de quate wa ive r. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt to W a s hington sta te and SEIU. AFFIRM E D.

5