NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
 2 20-15356 

Patricia Grossman appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in

her 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 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. 2004). 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’ claims 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 exclusive 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 permissible); 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 (June 
 3 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 

(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 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.