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

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GENEVIEVE SHIR OM A , a n individua l; e t a l., De fe nda

n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 14-16640

D.C . No. 1:14-c v-00236-LJO-GSA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia La wre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 12, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS a n d GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s , a

n d SELNA, * * Distric t Judge

. This inte rloc utory a

ppe a l a rise s from t

he d e nia l of offic ia l im

m u nity in pla intiff Silvia L ope z ’ s (“ Lopez”) la bor dispute with de fe nda nts-a ppe lla nts, offic ia ls of C a lifornia ’ s Agric ultura l La bor R e la tions B oa

rd (“ ALR B ” or “ B oa

rd” ). An e m

ploy e e 

# FIL ED
SEP 14 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r o pr i at e f o r pu b l i cat i o n an d i s not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** T h e H o n o r a b l e J a me s V
. S el n a , U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.of Ge ra

wa n Fa rm i ng, Inc ., Lope z oppose s i ts re l a tionship with Unite d Fa rm W orke rs of Am e ric a (“ UFW ” ) a nd la unc he d a rep r es en t ation e le c t ion to de c e rtify UFW a s Ge ra wa n e m

ploy e e s ’ unio n re pre se nta tive

. She a lle g e s tha t c e rta i n de c isions issue d in the c ourse of the de c e rtific a t ion proc e s s s er ved a s a pre te xt to shie ld UFW from d ece rtific a t ion a nd tha t de fe nda nts viola te d he r due proc e ss a nd First Am e n d m en t rights. Lope z se e k s d a m a g e s a s w el l a s de c la ra tory a nd injunc tive re lie f p ursua nt to 42 U.S.C . § 1983. The distric t c ourt rule d tha t de fe n da nts la c k e d o ffic ia l im

m unity by de ny ing the i r a bsolute im

m unity d e fe nse a nd de c lining to re a c h qua lifie d im m unity

. Absolute
a nd qua lifie d im

m unity a re que stions of la

w re vie we d de novo, ba se d on the fa c ts a s the c om pla i nt pre se nts the m . Padilla v . Yoo , 678 F.3d 748, 757 (9th C ir. 2 0 12); Olse n
v . Idaho State B d. of Me d. , 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th C ir. 2004). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, s e e Morle y v . W alk e r , 175 F.3d 756, 759-60 (9th C ir. 1999),
a nd we a ffirm

in pa rt a nd re ve rse in pa

rt. Lope z ’ s c la im s ste m from the B oa rd’ s de c ision to im

pound ba llots from the de c e rtific a tion e l e c tion pe nding re solution of c e rta in unfa ir l a bor pra c tic e c om

pla i nts (“ ULPs” ) a nd from p u rporte dly unwa rra n te d d e la

y s a nd inte rfe re nc e on t

he pa rt of the ALR B ’ s R e giona l Dire c tor de fe nda nt Sila s Sha

wve r.

2W e a ffirm t he distric t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tion tha t de fe n da nts a re not e ntitle d to
a bsolute im

m unity

. Q ua si-judic ia l im m unity e xte nds to non-judic ia l a ge nts w h e n
suc h a ge nts “ pe rform offic i a l dutie s tha t a re func tiona lly c om pa ra b l e to those of judge s , i.e ., d

u tie s t ha t involve the e xe rc i se o f disc re tion in re solving dispute s.” A nt o in e v . By e rs & Ande r son, Inc

. , 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993). Sim ila r to ju d g es , prose c ut o r s ar e shie l d e d from da m a ge s a c tions tha t ste m from c onduc t c lose l y inte rtwine d with the judic ia l proc e ss. Imble r v . P ac htman , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 4 0 9, 430-31 (1976). W he n the y a

re pe rform ing a dm inistra

tive or inve stiga

tive func tions, howe ve r,
suc h im m unity is not a va ila

ble

. Buc k l e y v . Fitzsimmons , 509 U.S. 259, 271-73 (1993). Thus, “ the prote c tion of a bsolute im

m unity re a ch es ‘o n ly t

hose ac tions tha t a re judic ia l or c lose ly a s soc ia te d with the judic ia l proc e s s’ ” –e ve n if the a c tors in que stion ha ve , in othe r c onte x ts, be e n de e m e d e ntitle d to im m unity

. Buc k

w alte r v . N

e v . Bd. of Me d

. Ex am’rs , 678 F.3d 7 37, 740 (9th C ir. 2012) (e m pha sis a dde d) (quoting Buc k l e y , 509 U.S. a

t 273). On ba la nc e , the Bu tz v . Ec onomou , 438 U .S. 478, 512 (1978), fa c tors we igh
a ga inst finding a

bsolute i m

m unity for the B oa

rd m e m be r de fe nda

nts. T he ir dispute d de c ision–the b a llot im

pound–fe ll squa

re ly within the ir a d

m inistra t ive re sponsibilitie s to o ve rse e re pre s e nta t ion e le c t ions, C a l. La b. C ode § § 1 1 42-1144, a role distinc t from the i r qua si-

j u d i ci al func t ion of a djudic a ting ULPs, id. §§ 1 160.2-.3, .8; 8 C a l. C o de
3R e gs. §§ 20202, 20206 , 20280-20287; se e Bud Antle , Inc

. v . Barbosa , 45 F.3d 1261, 1272 (9th C ir. 1995). The pe titione r em p loy e e s re c e ive d no im

m e d ia te opportunity to c onte st the de c ision, c f. B uckwa l t er , 6 78 F.3d a t 741, a nd ha ve i nste a d be e n
e m broile d in se pa

ra te litiga tion to a ir the i r grie va

nc e s a ga inst the B oa

rd. Sha wve r i s like wise n ot e ntitle d to a bsolute im

m unity

. As a re giona l dire c tor, Sha wve r is ve ste d by the B oa rd with a uthority t o inve s tiga

te p et i t i ons, ove rse e
re pre se nta tion e le c tions, a nd inve stiga te U LPs. 8 C a l. C o de R e gs. §§ 20216, 20290, 20350, 20385, 20390. M any ty pe s of de c isions m a de by re giona l dire c tors a re
a ppe a la ble to the B oa

rd. Id. §§ 20219, 20393. A d e c i sion to de ny a n e le c tion pe tition on the ground tha t it la c ks a suffic ie nt num b e r of signa

ture s from

e ligible e m

ploy e e s is, howe ve r, fina l. Id. § 20300. Alt h o ug h re giona l dire c t ors inve stiga te U LPs, the y
re port findings to the B oa rd’ s G e ne ra l C ounse l, who the n de c ide s whe the r to issue a form a l c om

pla i nt a nd pursue a

c a s e . Id. §§ 20216, 20222-20261. De fe nda nts a re , howe ve r, e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity

. Although the distric t
c ourt found the de fe nda

nt s ’ f o otnote ra ising this a lte rna tive de fe n se insuffic ie nt to de c ide its m e rits, the issue is fully brie fe d on a ppe a l. M ore ove r, qua l ifie d im m unity is a q ue stion o f la

w tha t, he re , doe s not de pe nd on the fa c tua l re c ord; i t is thus within
our disc ret ion to ta k e u

p in the first insta

nc e . A-1 Ambulanc e Se rv ., Inc

. v . C ty
. of Monte re y , 90 F.3d 3 3 3, 338-39 (9th C ir. 1 996). W e ta ke note th at L o pe z wishe s to
4a m e nd he r c om pla int be l o w to ple a d a dditiona l fa c ts. Y e t, no a m e ndm e nt c a n c ure tha t the cr u x o f he r c a se la c ks a c le a rly de fine d c onstitutiona l right. Se e Babbitt v . Unite d Farm W o rk e rs N a t’l Union , 442 U.S. 289, 313 (1979). AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART AND RE M ANDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r the ir own c osts on a

ppe a l.

5