NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS FEW,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants

- Appellees,
and
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant. No. 20

- 55338
D.C. No. 2:18

- cv - 09531

- 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 * *
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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). 

# FILED

JAN 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55338

Thomas Few appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union
membersh ip dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo cross - motions for summary judgment

. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Jim Beam
Brands Co. , 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016)

. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem

- Keizer Yellow Cab Co. , 389 F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
S ummary judgment on Few’s claim seeking retro spe ctive monetary relief from deduction of union membership dues was proper because Few failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he did not affirmatively and voluntarily consent to the deduction of union dues. See Belgau v. Inslee , 975 F.3d 940, 95 0

- 52 (9th Cir. 2020), cert

. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021) (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 a void paying union dues that were agreed upon under validly entered membership agreements). The parties agree that this court’s intervening
decision in Belgau v. Inslee , 975 F.3d 940, 950

- 52 (9th Cir. 2020), cert

. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021) , controls t he outcome of this claim

. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Few ’ s claim seeking prospective relief from the u nion because such claim is moot. See Bain v.3 20

- 55338

Cal. Teachers Ass’n , 891 F.3d 1206, 1211

- 15 (9th Cir. 2018) (plaintiffs’ claims for prospective relief were moot when they resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future). The district court properly dismissed Few ’ s claim challenging California’s exclusive bargaining representation arrangement because Few failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Mentele v. Inslee , 916 F.3d 783, 790

- 91 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that exclusive bargaining arrangement is constitutionally permis sible) ; Serra v. Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1195

- 96 (9th Cir. 2010) ( setting
forth standard of review). 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. 2 009).
AFFIRMED.