NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT WILFORD; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES; et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Intervenor

- Defendant

Appellee. No. 19

- 55712
D.C. No. 8:18

- cv - 01169

- JLS

- DFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022 * *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellants’ request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. 

# F ILED

JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 55712

Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Scott Wilford, Bonnie Hayhurst, Rebecca Friedrichs, Michael Monge,
Harlan Elrich, Jelena Figueroa, and Gene Gray appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action alleging First
Amendment and state law claim s arising out of compul sory agency fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

. Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195

- 96 (9th Cir. 2010)

. We affirm. The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim for retrospective
monetary relief because a public sector union can, as a matter of law, “invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the age ncy fees it collected” prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council
31 , 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2486 (2018)

. Danielson v. Inslee , 945 F.3d 1096, 109 7

- 99,
1102

- 03 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. deni ed , 141 S. Ct. 1265 (2021) (explaining that plaintiffs’ claim for monetary relief was for damages and not restitution, but “[e]ven accepting Plaintiffs’ restitutionary premise, the equities do not weigh in favor of requiring a refund of all agency fees col lected pre

- Janus ”). The district court properly dismissed as moot plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief because defendants stopped deducting and receiving agency fees3 19

- 55712

after the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus disallowed the deduction or receipt of agency fees in their collective bargaining agreements, stopped enforcing statutes permitting the deduction of agency fees , and demonstrated that they are unlikely to rescind the policy changes

. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Se rvs. (TOC), Inc. , 528 U.S. 167, 189

- 90 (2000) (explaining voluntary cessation and

mootness ) ; cf. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm’n , 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (explaining that the mere existence of a proscriptive statute
does not cre ate a constitutionally sufficient direct injury). The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim

. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 3515.7 (permitting c ollection of agency fees ) ; City of San Jose v. Operating Eng’rs Local Union No. 3 , 232 P.3d 701, 705

- 07 (Cal. 2010) ( explaining that California’s P ublic E mployment R elations B oard has exclusive jurisdiction over activities arguably protected or prohibited by the state’s relevant
labor law , including unfair practices ) ; El Rancho Unified Sch. Dist. v. Nat’l Educ.
Ass’n , 663 P.2d 893, 901

- 02 (Cal. 1983) ( setting forth California’s preemption
doctrine )

. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctl y raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.