N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M AR Y H. STEELE-KLEIN, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. INTER NATIONAL B R OTHER HOOD OF TEAM STER S, LOC AL 117, doing busine ss in W a shington, he a dqua rte rs, W a shington, DC ; e t a l .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-36083 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00553-R SM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ardo S. M artine z , C hie f Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 10, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, B E A, a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. M ary Ste e le -Kle in a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of he r c om pla int for fa ilure to sta

t e a c l a im without gra

nting he r le av e to a

m e nd. W e re vie w a

distric t 

# F IL ED J UN 06 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).c ourt’ s dismissa l of a c o m pla i nt for fa ilure to sta

te a c la im de novo. C

oto Se ttle me nt v . Eise nbe rg , 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie wa distric t
c ourt’ s de nia l of le ave to a m e nd for a

b use of disc re tion. Le adsinge r, Inc
. v . BMG MusicPub. , 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th C i r. 2008). W e have jurisdic tion to he ar this
a ppe a l, 28 § U.S.C . 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ste e le -Kle in’ s first c l a im , a sse rting that Appe lle e s viola

te d he r First a

nd Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nt rights. Ste e le -Kle in
argue s tha

t Te am ste rs Loc a l 117 (“ the Union” ) and he r e m ploy e r 1 fa ile d to m e e t the p roc e dura l re quire m e nts theSupre m e C o urt outline d in C hic ago Te ac he rs Union, Loc al N

o. 1 v . Hudson , 475 U.S. 292 (1986), with re ga rd to them andatory
c ontributions she , a s an e m ploy e e of King C o unty

Ele c t ions, wa s re quire d to m ake to the W e ste rn C onfe re nc e Te am ste rs Pe nsion Trust Fund (“ W C TP Trust Fund” ). The Hudson proc e dura l re quire m e nts a p ply to m andatory

union due s, not to
m andatory

pe nsion c ontributions. Se eid. at 301–03. Ste e le -Kle in ha s a l le ge d no othe r m anne r in whic h the m a ndatory c o ntributions to the

W C T P Trust Fund im plic at e the First or Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. Ac c ordingly , dism issa l wa s prope r,

1 Ste e le -Kle in a sse rts this c la im , a nd othe r c l a im s a ga inst he r “ e m ploy e r.” B e c a use he r a c tua l e m

p loy e r—King C ounty

Ele c t ions—is not a nam e d pa rty in this c a s e , we c onstrue he r re fe re nc e s to “ e m p loy e r” to m e an Dow C onsta ntine , the King C o unty Exe c utive
. 2be c a

use the re is no c ogniz a

b le le ga l ba sis for Ste e le -Kle in’ s c la im
. Se e W oods v
. U.S. Bank N .A. , 831 F.3d 1159, 1162 (9th C ir. 2016) (holding tha t dismissa l is prope r whe re c om

pla i nt la c ks “ a

c ogniz a ble le ga l the o ry ” ). Ste e le -Kle in’ s two propose d am e ndm e nts would not c ure the se le ga l de fic ie nc ie s. First, a dding theW C TP Trust Fund a s a pa rty to this suit would not
c ha nge our c onc l u sion tha

t the Hudson proc e dura l re quire m e nts do not a pply to
m andatory

pe nsion c ontributions. Se c ond, pe rm itting Ste e le -Kle i n to a sse rt a n e ntire l y ne wc la im

ba se d on wrongful re ta l iation in viola tion of theFirst Am e ndm e nt would be futile . Ne ithe r King C ounty nor King C ounty Ele c tions (Ste e le -Kle in’ s e m

ploy e r) are c urre ntly

pa rtie s or propose d

pa rtie s to this suit, a

nd Ste e le -Kle in ha s not ide ntifie d how C onsta ntine , individually , re ta l iate d a ga inst he r. Se e Hy d

ric k v . Hunte r , 669 F.3d 937, 942 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [T] o e sta blish individual lia

bility unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1983, ‘ a pla intiff m

ust ple a d tha

t e a c h Gove rnm e nt-offic ia l de fe nda nt, through the

offic ia l’ s own individua

l a c t ions, ha s viola te d the C onstitution.’ ” (quoting Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009))). The re c ord shows tha

t King C ounty

Ele c tions re hire d he r to work a nothe r e le c tion
c y c le shortly

a fte r she c om

pla ine d a bout them andatory

pe nsion c o ntributions. W e de c line to gra

nt he r le ave to a

m e nd, be c a

use she ha s fa ile d to ide ntify what spe c ific
a dditional fa c ts she would ple a d to support her re ta lia t ion c la im or what spe c ific
3pa

rtie s re ta lia

te d a ga inst he r. Se e K

e ndall v . Visa U.S.A., Inc
. , 518 F.3d 1042, 1052 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ Appe lla nts fa il to sta

te what a dditional fa c ts the y would ple a d if give n le av e to a

m e nd, or wha

t a dditional disc ove ry

the y would c o nduc t to disc ove r suc h fa c ts. Ac c o rdingly , am e ndm e nt would befutile .” ). 2. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ste e le -Kle in’ s se c ond c la im , whic h
a sse rte d tha

t the Union a

nd Dow C onsta

ntine im pose d a n im pe rm issibletax burde n on he r an d othe r e m

ploy e e s. Ste e le -Kle in ne ve r e xpla ins this “ i m pe rm issibletax burde n ” or c ite s a le ga l ba sis for he r c l a im . B e c a use Ste e le -Kle in fa i ls to ide ntify a

“ c o gniz a ble le ga l the ory ” and fa ils to e xpla in the fa c t s supporting tha t le ga l the ory , dism issa l wa s prope r. Se e W oods , 831 F.3d a

t 1162. Gra

nting le a v e to a m e nd would, a ga in, be futile , be c a use Ste e le -Kle in ha s not ide ntifie d how she would
artic ulate a c ogniz a

ble le ga l the ory

if give n the opportunity
. Se e K e ndall , 518 F.3d
at 1052. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ste e le -Kle in’ s third c la im , a sse rting that the Union fra

udule ntly m isre pre se nte d how it use s union due s. This c la im fa ils to m e e t the he ighte n e d ple a ding sta nda rd found in Fe d e ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d ure 9(b). Ste e le -Kle in ha s not ide ntifie d the ba sic fa c ts of the a lle ge d fraudule nt m isre pre se ntation, suc h a s wha t e x a c t sta te m e nts or om issions were fraudule nt a

nd whe n the a lle ge d ly

fra udule nt a c tivity

oc c urre d
. Ve

ss v . C iba-Ge igy
4C

orp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th C i r. 2003) (“ Ave rm e nts of fra ud m ust be
a c c om pa nie d by ‘ t he who, wha

t , whe n, whe re , a

nd how’ of the m isc o nduc t
c ha rge d.” (quoting C

oope r v . Pic k

e tt , 137 F.3d 616, 627 (9th C i r. 1997))). Ste e le
Kle in a lso ha s not a lle g e d fa c ts to support e a c h of the nine e l e m e nts of a fra udule nt
m isre pre se ntation c l a im

unde r W a shington la

w. Se e Stile

y v . Bloc k, 925 P.2d 194, 204 (W a sh. 1996) (e n ba

nc ). For e xam

ple , the c om

pla int doe s not a s se rt how the Union intende d

to induc e re lia

n c e on its a lle ge dly

fra udule nt sta

te m e nts, or how Ste e le -Kle in wa s injure d whe n she re lie d on the sta te m e nts. Se e id. B e c a

use Ste e le -Kle in ha s m a de no atte m pt to c la rify how she would ove rc om e the se de fic ie nc ie s in he r c om

pla i nt, we find gra

nting le ave to a

m e nd would befutile
. Se e K e ndall , 518 F.3d a

t 1052. 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ste e le -Kle in’ s fourth c a use of
a c tion, a sse rting a

c la im for “ the ft.” The distric t c ourt prope rly c onstrue d the c la im
a s one for the tort of c onve rsion, be c a use W a s hington doe s not ha ve a c i vil c la im for “ the ft.” “ M one y

m ay be the subje c t of c onve rsion if thepa rty c ha rge d with
c onve rsion wrongfully

re c e ive d the m one y

. . . .” C o to Se t tle me nt , 593 F.3d a t 1039. Thec om

pla int doe s not ide ntify

a c o g niz a ble le ga l ba sis for c onc l uding tha t Appe l le e s “ wrongfully ” re c e ive d he r wa ge s whe n King C ounty Ele c t ions de duc te d the m andatory

c ontribution to the

W C TP Trust Fund from

he r pay c he c k. Se e
5W

oods , 831 F.3d a

t 1162. M ore ove r, Ste e le -Kle in a c knowle dge s be ginning work
at King C ounty

Ele c tions only

a fte r signing a

notic e of e m

ploy m e nt tha t e xpla ine d the m andatory

wa ge de duc tion for the W C TP Trust Fund, whic h sugge sts shein fa c t c onse nte d to suc h de duc tions. Id. Ste e le -Kle i n a lso omits a ny substa ntive disc ussion of this c l a im

on a ppe a l; the re fore , a

ny argum e nts for sa

ving this c la im from dism issa l or a

m e nding this c la im

are wa ive d. Se e Martine z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th C i r. 1996). 5. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ste e le -Kle in’ s fifth c la im , be c a use the re is no c ivil a c tion for e m be z z le m e nt unde r W a shington la w. AFFIRM E D.

6