NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILIANA HERNANDEZ; et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

AFSCME CALIFORNIA; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15076 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02419-WBS-EFB 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2021**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Liliana Hernandez, Miranda Alexander, Natasha Joffe, Rohit Sherma, 

Hector Arroyo, Timothy Porter, Emin Gharibian, and Maria Isabel Holtrop appeal 

from the district court’s judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action 

* 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). Plaintiffs’ request for oral 

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

FILED

JUL 29 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-15076 

alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also 

known as fair share fees) and union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1098 

(9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1265 (2021) (summary judgment); Serra v. 

Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195-96 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to state a 

claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We may affirm on any ground 

supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 

2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim 

arising out of compulsory agency fees paid to AFSCME Local 2620 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 agency 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 (2018).

Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1097-99 (“[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative 

defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and 

presumptively-valid state law.”).

The district court properly dismissed Porter’s claims seeking declaratory and 

injunctive relief for lack of standing because Porter failed to establish that he had 
 3 20-15076 

suffered or would imminently suffer an injury-in-fact. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 

136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548 (2016) (to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement, a plaintiff 

must show that he “suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is 

concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or 

hypothetical” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims 

arising from union membership dues deductions. See Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 

940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 

21, 2021) (discussing state action); see id. at 950-52 (concluding that the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal 

Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), did not extend a First Amendment 

right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon under validly 

entered membership agreements).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

The unopposed motion to substitute parties (Docket Entry No. 29) is 

granted. The Clerk will amend the docket to substitute Eraina Ortega as successor 

to defendant-appellee Adria Jenkins-Jones, and Kathleen Allison as successor to 

defendant-appellee Ralph Diaz.

The unopposed motion to dismiss parties (Docket Entry No. 30) is treated as 
 4 20-15076 

a motion to correct this court’s caption, and is granted. The Clerk will amend the 

case caption to reflect that Edmund G. Brown, Mark Gregersen, Eric Banks, 

Priscilla Winslow, Erich Shiners, and Arthur A. Krantz are defendants, not 

defendant-appellees. To the extent these parties seek corrections to the district 

court docket, such a request must be filed in the district court.

AFFIRMED.