N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALEXANDER

C OTE, individua

lly and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. OFFIC E OF THE C ALIFOR N IA STATE C ONTR OLLER ; B ETTY T. YEE, in her offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C a lifornia

State C ontrolle r, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-15375 D.C . No. 4:22-c v-04056-HSG
M EM O R ANDUM *

JENNIFER I. SYKES, individual ly and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. OFFIC E OF THE C ALIFOR N IA STATE C ONTR OLLER ; B ETTY T. YEE, in her offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C a lifornia

State C ontrolle r, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-15377 D.C . No. 4:22-c v-04133-HSG



# FIL ED
MAR 14 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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.ALISON C OLE-KELLY, Individua lly and on B e ha lf of All ThoseSim ila rly Situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. B ETTY T. YEE, in her offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C a l ifornia State C o ntrolle r; STATE OF C ALIFOR

NIA, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 23-15413 D.C . No. 4:22-c v-02841-HSG

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Haywood S. Gillia

m , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 12, 2024 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S.R . THOM A S, M c KEOW N, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts Ale xa nde r C oté , Je nnife r Syke s, a nd Alison C o le -Ke lly
a ppe a l a distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l without le ave to a m e nd of the ir puta

tive c la ss
a c tion a ga inst De fe nde nt-Appe lle e the C a lifornia State C ontrolle r. W e have jurisdic tion ove r this a

ppe a l of the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C
.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2§ 1291. W e a ffirm the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c o unt it he re .

“ Dism issa l pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6) is re vie we d de novo.” Doughe rty

v . C ity of C ov ina , 654 F .3d 892, 897 (9th C ir . 201 1) (e m pha sis omitte d). “ W

e re vie w for a

buse of disc re tion a distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l . . . without le ave to a m e nd.” Be nav ide

z v . C ounty of San Die

go , 993 F .3d 1 134, 1 141–42 (9th C i r . 2021). “ A distric t c ourt a c t s within its disc re tion to de ny le ave to a

m e nd whe n am e ndm e nt would befutile . . . .” V .V .V . & Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v

. Me e n ak s hi Ov e rse as, LLC , 946 F .3d 542, 547 (9th C ir . 2019) (e llipsis in origina l) (quoting C

h appe l v . Lab. C o rp. of Am. , 232 F .3d 719, 725–26 (9th C ir
. 2000)). W

e re vie w “ t

he que stion of futility

of am e ndm e nt de novo.” U nite d S tate s
v . Unite d He althc ar

e Ins. C o. , 848 F .3d 1 161, 1 172 (9th C ir . 2016). Pla intiffs c la im

tha t C a lifornia ’ s Unc la im e d Prope rty La w (UPL) viola

te s the Fifth a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts of theUnite d State s C o nstitution a nd Artic le 1, Se c tion 19 of the C a lifornia

C onstitution. San Re mo Hote l L.P. v . C ity And C ounty of San Franc i

sc o , 27 C a l. 4th 643, 664 (2002) (c onstruing the C a lifornia C onstitution’ s ta

kings c la u se “ c ongrue ntly ” to the Unite d State s C onstitution’ s Ta

kings C la use ). The y

argue tha t C a lifornia ’ s Unc la im e d Prope rty
3Law is unc onstitutiona l be c a use it doe s not re quire inte re st to bepa id on e sc he ate d prope rty while he ld by

the sta te nor onc e re c la im e d. C a l . C iv. Proc . C ode § 1540(c ). Pla i ntiffs se e k de c la ratory and injunc t ive re lie f to re m e d y this injury
. Howe v e r, we have a lre a dy de c ide d this que s tion in two c a se s: Turnac liff v

. W e s tly , 546 F.3d 1113 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd Sue v e r v . C

onne ll , 579 F.3d 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). The s e c a s e s bind us, a nd pre c lude re lie f. In a d dre ssing a n e s tate
a dm inistra

tor’ s c ha lle nge to the 2002 ve rsion of C a lifornia ’ s Unc la im e d Prope rty Law tha t gua rante e d som e inte re st, we he ld tha t “ whe n the Esta

te a ba ndone d its prope rty , it forfe ite d a

ny right to intere st e arne d by tha t prope rty .” T urnac l iff , 546 F .3d a t 1 1 19; T e x ac o, Inc . v

. Short , 454 U.S. 516 (1982). W e c onfirm e d tha t holding in S

ue v e r , whe re we re

j e c te d c la im s for re troa c tive inte re st unde r the sa m e 2002 sta tute be c a u se “ sta te sove re ign im

m unity c le a rly pre c lude s Pla intif

fs from
suc c e ssfully

obta ining mor

e tha n [the i r e s c he ate d princ ipa l a nd sa l e s proc e e ds the re from ] in the form

of inte re st.” 579 F.3d a

t 1059. W e a lso re

je c te d c la im s for
an injunc tion tha

t re quire d the “ pa

ym e nt of inte re st on a

ny c la im s for unc la im e d prope rty tha t e sc he ate d unde r” the 2003 C a l ifornia Unc l a im e d Prope rty

La w tha t pa id no intere st. Id. at 1057. And we re je c t e d c la im s for e quita

ble re lie f that we re

“ indistinguisha

ble in e f fe c t from c la im s for m one y

dam a g e s a ga inst theS tate and,
a s suc h, . . . ba

rre d b y the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt.” Id. at 1059–60.

4The re is no princ iple d dif fe re n c e to be drawn be twe e n the sta tute s those de c isions c onside re d a

nd the one be fore us toda y . Pla i ntif fs’ prope rty

ha s va lidly
e sc h e ate d to thesta

t e . The c urre nt sta

tute doe s not gua

rante e inte re st, C a l C iv
. Proc . C ode § 1540(c ) (2021) (“ Inte re st sha l l not bepa y a ble on a ny c la im pa id unde r this c ha

pte r .” ), a n d we a ddre sse d a

ne arly ide ntic a l sta

tute tha t did not gua ran te e inte re st in Sue v e r . 579 F.3d a t 1057; s e e C a l C iv. Proc . C o de § 1540(c ) (2003) (“ No inte re st sha ll be pa

y a ble on a ny c la i m pa id unde r this c ha

p te r.” ). As
we he ld in Sue v e r : “ [T] he State is not c o nstitutiona lly re quire d to pa

y a ny inte re st unde r the UPL . . . .” 576 F.3d at 1056. Thedistric t c ourt a pplie d our pre c e de nts
c orre c tly . To the e xte nt the pla intiffs’ c la im s a re for m one y

dam a ge s a ga inst the sta te , the y are ba rre d by the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt. Id. at 1059. To the e x te nt a ny
c la im s e sc a

pe the Ele ve nth Am e ndm e nt, pla intiffs c annot e sta b lish a n e ntitle m e nt to the inte re st the y

se e k
. Turnac liff, 546 F.3d a t 1119. To ove rc o m e the we ight of our pre c e de nt, pla intiffs c ite to se ve ra l out-ofc irc uit c a se s, whic h do not bind this c ourt, a nd se ve ra l Supre m e C ourt de c isions. A thre e -judge p a

ne l m ay ove rrule c irc uit pre c e d e nt only whe re an “ inte rve ning highe r a uthority ” is “ c le arly

irre c onc ila

ble ” with there a soning of tha t de c ision. C ore C iv ic , Inc . v . C andide Grp., LLC, 46 F.4th 1136, 1141 (9th C i r. 2022) (quoting Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc )).
5Turnac liff

and Sue v e r

we re de c ide d a fte r the c ite d Supre m e C ourt c a se s , a nd the re fore the c ite d c a se s c annot c onstitute “ inte rve ning higher a uthority
. ” M

ille r , 335 F.3d a

t 900. 1 The distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d Turnac liff and Sue v e r in dismissing the pla i ntiffs’ c la im s a s pre c lude d by Ninth C i rc uit pre c e de nt. AFFIRM E D.

1 Pla intiffs a l so sugge st the pa ne l c a ll for e n ba

nc re v ie w or c e rtify

the ir que stions to the

Supre m e C ourt. En ba

nc re v ie w is not wa

rrante d be c a

use we are not fa c e d with “ c ontra dic tory pre c e de nts” nor a

n “ irre c onc ila

ble c onflic t” in our c a se la w. Atonio v . W

ards C ov e Pac k i ng C o., Inc
. , 810 F.2d 1477, 1478–79 (9th C ir. 1987). As to whet

he r this pa

ne l should c e rtify

pla intif fs’ que stions to the Supre m e C ourt, m e re “ doubts”a bout a C ourt of Appe a ls’ prior pa ne l de c isions a

re insuf fic ie nt to invoke

“ so e xc e ptiona l a

jurisdic tion” a s the Supre m e C ourt’ s on c e rtific ation. W

isnie w sk i v . Unite d S tate s , 353 U.S. 901, 902 (1957).
6