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 ER NADET GUEVAR

R A,
Pla intiff - Appe lla nt,

v. SETON M EDIC AL C ENTER , e t a l.,
De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17457
D.C . No. 4:13-c v-02267-C W

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C la udia W ilke n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : HAW KINS a nd M UR G UIA, C irc uit Judge s a nd M UR PHY, * * Distric t Judge

. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Berna de t Gue va

rra (“ Gue v a rra ” ) wa s te rm ina te d from he r
p o sition a s a nurse a t Se ton M e dic a l C e nte r (“ Se ton” ) a fte r she poste d a m e ss ag e o n he r Fa c e book pa g e tha t c onta ine d pe rc e ive d threat s ag a inst he r supe rvisor. A 

# FIL ED

MAR 03 2016

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr iat e f o r p ub l i c a t 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.

** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose ph M urphy III, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.c olle a gue of Gue va rra ’ s re porte d he r post to Se ton offic ia ls. The C a li f o r n ia
Une m ploy m e nt Insura

nc e Appe a ls B oa

rd ( “ C U IAB ” ) subse q

ue ntly d e nie d he r

une m ploy m e n t b e ne fits. Afte r the c onc lusion of both her u nem p l oy m e nt be ne fits
proc e e dings a nd a sta

te be nc h tria l in a c ivil rights s uit Gue va rra file d a ga inst Se ton, 1
Gue va rra initia te d this a c tion a ga inst the C UIAB , its C h a i rm a n R obe rt Dre sse r (“ Dre s se r” ), a nd Se t on. She now a

ppe a ls the d i sm issa l with pre judic e of he r fe de ra l c onstitutiona l due
proc e s s a n d fre e dom of spe e c h c la im s unde r 4 2 U.S.C

. § 1983 a g a inst the C UIAB a n d
Dre sse r, a nd he r bre a c h of c o n tra c t a n d C a l i f o r nia C onstitution fre e spe e c h c la im s

a ga inst Se ton. Gue va

rra a lso m ove s the C ourt to c e rtify to the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt the que stion of whe the r a viola tion of the C a lifornia C onstitution’ s fre e spe e c h

c la use re quire s sta

t e a c t ion. W e ha ve j urisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U .S.C

. § 1291. W e

a ffirm the dism issa l a

nd de ny Gue va rra ’ s m o tion for c e rtific a tion.
I. Claim s Against the CUIAB and Dr e sse r The C UIAB found Gue va rra ine ligib l e f

or be ne fits unde r Une m ploy m e nt
Insura nc e C ode se c t ion 1256 be c a use s h e was fire d

for “ m isc onduc t c onne c te d with
work.” The C UIAB he ld t ha t G u ev ar r a wa s le t go be c a u se h e r Fa c e book

1 At ora l a rgum e nt, the pa rtie s inform e d t

he C ourt tha t the sta

t e c o urt rule d for Se ton, a n d Gue va rra ’ s a ppe a l is c urre ntly pe nding.

2post—

visible to a ll h e r “ frie nds” on the s ite , inc l uding fe ll o w Se ton

e m ploy e e s—

v iola te d Se ton’ s p olic y a ga inst t hre a te n ing or using a

busive la ngua ge

a ga inst c o -worke rs. Dissa tisfie d, Gue v a rra file d a pe tition for writ of a dm inistra t ive m a nda te in Sa n M a t e o C ounty Supe rior C ourt. She hinged he r p e tition o n the the ory tha t the
C UIAB ’ s de c ision a

bridge d her co n s t i tutiona l fre e dom s. Sinc e Gue va rra fa ile d to

n am e S e ton, a re a l pa

rty in inte re st, a nd w a s pre c lude d from doing so by the sta tute of lim i ta t ions , t he supe rior c ourt uphe ld the C UIAB ’ s de c ision a nd d ism i sse d he r
pe tition with pre

j udic e
. The Rook e r-Fe ldman doc trine now pre c lude s fe d e ra l s ubje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion

ove r h e r c la im s a ga inst the C UIAB a n d Dre sse r be c a use t hey co m

p r i s e a de fa c to

a ppe a l of the sta

te c ourt’ s d i sm issa l of Gue va rra ’ s pe tition. Rook

e r -Fe ldman a

pplie s whe n a pla intiff a sse rts e rror by the sta te c o urt a s a n injury , a nd se e ks re lie f from the
sta te c ourt judgm e nt a s a re m e dy

. K ougasian v
. TMSL, Inc

. , 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
C ir. 2004).
He re , Gue va

rra d oe s both. Adjudic a tion of he r c onstitutiona l c la i m s would

ne c e ssita te e xa m ining the s t a te c ourt’ s de c ision, a nd gra nting re lie f w ould re quire disturbing it. Se e Bi a nc hi v
. R y laarsdam , 334 F.3d 8 95, 901–02 (9th C ir. 2003) ( h o l d i n g tha t due proc e ss c la im a ga i nst s ta te c ourt judge for bia s wa s “ ine xtric a bly

3inte rtw i n ed ” with t he sta te c o urt’ s de c ision, a nd t hus b e y ond the fe de ra l c ourt’ s subje c t m a t te r jurisdic tion).
Se co n d , G ueva rra ’ s § 1983 c la im s fa i l be c a use t he C UIAB e njoy s a

bsolute
Ele v e n th Am e n dm e nt im m unity from suits for d a m a g e s a n d t he injunc tive r e lie f
Gue va rra se e ks. Se e Mitc he l l v
. Forsy th , 472 U .S

. 5 1 1 , 5 20 (1985). The E le ve nth
Am e n d m en t like wise insula te s Dre s se r, na m e d i n his offic ia l c a pa c ity , from
Gue va rra ’ s c la i m for da m a ge s , a nd she fa ils to ple a d his pe rsona l i nvolve m e nt in he r

c a se , be y ond m e r el y ci ting his sta tus a s C ha irm a n of the C UIAB , tha t c ould susta in
the c la im for e quita

b le re lie f. Flint v
. D en n i s o n , 488 F.3d 816, 8 24–25 (9th C ir. 2007).
Give n t

ha t Gue va rra offe re d no fa c ts or the orie s in h e r brie fs or a t ora l a rgum e nt tha t c ould sa ve the se c l a im s by a m e ndm e nt, dism issa l with pre j udic e w a s a

ppropria te

. II. Claim s Against Se ton The distric t c ourt a lso prope rly dism isse d G ue va rra ’ s c la im s for bre a c h of

c ontra c t a nd bre a c h of t h e c ove na

nt o f good fa i th a nd fa i r d e a l ing for Gue va rra ’ s fa ilure to e xha

ust binding grie va

nc e a rbitra tion proc e dure s s e t forth in the C o ntra c tua l
B a rga ining Agre e m e nt (“ C B A” ) be twe e n Se ton a n d he r union.
Se c tion 301 of the La

bor M a na ge m e nt R e la tions Ac t (“ LM R A” ), 2 9 U.S.C

. § 185, e sta blishe s fe de ra l jurisdic tion ove r “ [s] uits for viola tion of c ontra c ts be twe e n a n

4e m

ploy er an d a la

bor orga niz a tion.” It displa c e s sta te -la w c la im s whose outc om e s de pe nd on a

na ly sis of a C B A’ s t e rm s. Se e Young v
. Anthony ’s Fish Grottos, Inc

. , 830 F.2d 993, 997–98 (9th C ir. 1987).
Howe v e r, Gue v a rra c a nnot susta in a c la im unde r the LM R A be c a use she wa s
pa rty to a c olle c tive ba

rga ining a gre e m e n t with Se t on t h at c onta ine d m a nda tory grie va nc e a nd a rbitra

tion pr o cedure s, whic h s he fa ile d to e xha u st. Gue va

rra , in

e sse nc e , ple a d s wrongful te rm ina t ion w ithout just c a use
. Suc h a n a lle gat ion fa lls
squa re ly within the ter m s o f he r C B A. Ac c ording to the C B A, Se ton m a inta ins

a uthority to “ disc h a rge or a sse ss disc iplin ary a c tion [a ga inst a n e m ploy e e ] for j ust

c a use .” It furthe r sta

t e s tha t “ a dispute . . . c onc e rning . . . whe the r or not disc ipline , i n cl u d i n g d i sc ha

rge , is for just c a

use
. . . shall be ha

ndle d in a c c orda

nc e with the
proc e du r e [ t he C B A ] se t[s] forth.” It is not in dispute tha t Gue va rra ’ s union did not initia te grie va nc e pr o ced u r es , nor did s he p ursue a c tion a g a i nst he r u nion for fa iling
to do so. 2 This fa ilure ba rs he r from pursuing re m e die s in d istric t c ourt now, a n d
dism issa l with pre

judic e wa s prope r.

2 As the distric t c ourt note d, le a ve to a m e nd for Gue va

rra to ple a d t h at h er union bre a c he d its duty of fa i r re pre se nta tion would be fruitle ss be c a use the six-m onth sta tute of lim ita

tions for s uc h a c la im long a go e xpire d. S ore me k un v
. Thrifty Pay le

ss, Inc

. , 509 F.3d 978, 986 (9th C ir. 2007). 5Gue va rra ’ s se c ond c la im

a ga inst Se ton, for a viola tion of fre e spe e c h rights a s prote c te d by the C a lifornia C onstitution, like w ise suc c u m bs to a fa ta l de fic i e nc y : suc h

a c la i m m ust a rise from s ta te a c tion. Arti cl e I , s e c tion 2 sta te s,“ [e ] ve ry pe rson m a y fre e ly spe a k, write a nd publish his or he r se ntim e nts on a l l subje c ts, be ing re sponsible
for the a buse of this right. A l a w m a y n o t r es t ra in or a bridge libe rty o f spe e c h or
pre s s.” Gue va

rra a c knowle dge s tha

t Se ton is a

priva t e e ntity

. Gue va rra a rgue s tha t the re e xists suffic ie nt disa g re e m en t am ong C a lifornia

a uthoritie s on whe the r A rtic le I, se c tion 2 m a nda te s sta te a c tion t o m e rit c e rtific a tion

o f the que stion to the C a lifornia Supre m e C ourt. W e disa gre e
. W h ile this que stion
ha s not re c e ive d a squa

re a nswe r, C a lifornia c ourts ha ve a pplie d Artic l e I, se c tion 2’ s prote c tion a ga inst priva

te a c t ors only in c a se s whe n a priva te a c t or owns prope rty tha t h as be e n ope ne d up to t

he public suc h tha t it be c om e s a qua si-public foru m , an d t h e priva te a c tor the re by re se m

ble s a sta te a c tor. Se e

, e
. g. , Ralphs Groc e ry C

o. v
. Unite d
Food & C omme r c i al W

ork e rs Union Loc al 8 , 55 C a l. 4th 1083, 1093 (2012); Fashion Valley M a l l , LLC v
. N

LRB , 42 C a l. 4th 850, 856–57 (2007). C e rtific a t ion is a lso
ina p propria te be c a use it is unlike ly tha t t

he C a lifornia Supre m e C o urt’ s a nswe r would
be outc om e de te rm ina tive

. Se e C a l. R u le of C o urt 8 .548 (c e rtific a tion i s a ppropria te whe re the re is n o c ontrolling pre c e de nt, a nd the de c ision c ould de te rm ine the outc om e of a m a tte r pe nding in the

re que sting c ourt).

6W e do not se e a w a y Gue va rra c ould a m e nd he r a l le ga tions into via ble c la im s,

nor doe s she sugges t o ne
. W e the re fore a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l with
pre j udic e a nd de ny

Gue va rra ’ s m otion for c e rtific a tion.
AFFIRM E D

.

7