NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
 2 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 

membership 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. 

Summary judgment on Few’s claim seeking retrospective 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, 950-52 (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 avoid 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 the outcome of this claim.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Few’s claim 

seeking prospective relief from the union 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 

permissible); 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. 2009).

AFFIRMED.