NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PATRICIA GROSSMAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

HAWAII GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ’ ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 152,AFL

- CIO; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees,

and

RUSSELL A. SUZUKI, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Hawaii,

Defendant. No. 20

- 15356

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv

- 00493

- DKW

- RT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19 , 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, 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

JUL 29 2021

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

- 15356

Patricia Grossman appeals from the distric t court’s summary judgment in

her 4 2 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 a decision on 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. 2 004). We affirm.

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

seeking prospective relief because such claim is moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers

Ass’n , 891 F.3d 1206, 1211

- 15 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiffs’ claim s for

prospective relief 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 Grossman’s First Amendment claim

challenging the exclusiv e bargaining representation arrangement for Hawaii public

employees because Grossman failed to allege a plausible claim. See Mentele v.

Inslee , 916 F.3d 783, 790

- 91 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that exclusive bargaining

arrangement is constitutionally permiss ible) ; Bain , 891 F.3d at 1211 ( setting forth

standard of review for motion to dismiss )

.
The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee
, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , No. 20

- 1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June3 20

- 15356

21, 2021)
, controls the outcome of Grossman’s First Amendment claim arising

from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement . We affirm the

district court’s summary judgment because Grossman affirmatively and voluntarily

consented to the deduction of union dues

. See Belgau , 975 F.3d at 950

- 52

( conclu ding 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

ext end a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon

under validly entered union 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).

AFFIRMED.