Court Opinion

ID: 9956579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 16:00:50.937001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:38.019161
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 2 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL CRAINE,                                 No.    23-55206

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
                                                2:22-cv-03310-DSF-SK
 v.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,                   MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 36, LOCAL 119,
an employee organization; COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, a public agency; ROB
BONTA, in his official capacity as Attorney
General of California,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

CAMILLE BOURQUE, individual; PETER              No.    23-55369
MOREJON, individual,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,          2:21-cv-04006-JAK-PVC

 v.

ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
ASSOCIATION, a labor organization; CITY

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
OF LOS ANGELES; ROB BONTA, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of
California,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted March 8, 2024
                              Pasadena, California

Before: CLIFTON, H.A. THOMAS, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff Michael Craine is an employee of the County of Los Angeles. He

alleges that he had dues deducted from his wages without his authorization and

sent to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Council 36, Local 119 (“AFSCME”), the exclusive bargaining representative for

his unit. Plaintiffs Camille Bourque and Peter Morejon are employees of the City

of Los Angeles. They allege that they had dues deducted from their wages without

their authorization and sent to the Engineers and Architects Association (“EAA”),

the exclusive bargaining representative for their units; indeed, Bourque alleges that

she never joined EAA. Plaintiffs raise First and Fourteenth Amendment claims

against the unions, their respective municipal employers, and California Attorney

General Rob Bonta. The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

                                          2
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure

to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Sabra v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 44

F.4th 867, 878 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

      1. The district court properly dismissed Morejon’s claims for prospective

relief for a lack of standing. Morejon was removed from EAA’s member list and

all deductions from his wages ceased before he filed his complaint. Allegations of

past injury alone, with only a highly speculative potential for future unauthorized

dues deductions, are insufficient to establish standing. Wright v. Serv. Emps. Int’l

Union Loc. 503, 48 F.4th 1112, 1118–21 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

749 (2023).

      2. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for prospective

relief as moot. The unions have refunded the money at issue and added Plaintiffs’

names to a list they sent to the municipalities containing the names of members

who have cancelled their dues authorization. When a defendant voluntarily ceases

allegedly unlawful conduct, that defendant “bears the formidable burden of

showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not

reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs.

(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000). Here, Defendants have carried their burden.

Plaintiffs are unlikely to authorize such deductions, and the deductions are

therefore unlikely ever to resume.

                                          3
      3. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the

Attorney General because they are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign

immunity.1 We have recognized that, “‘absent waiver by the State or valid

congressional override,’ state sovereign immunity protects state officer defendants

sued in federal court in their official capacities from liability in damages, including

nominal damages.” Platt v. Moore, 15 F.4th 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166–69 (1985)). Plaintiffs have not shown

waiver by the State or a valid congressional override.

      Plaintiffs’ argument that the Ex parte Young doctrine applies is unavailing.

Plaintiffs’ complaints include no allegations against the Attorney General beyond

stating that he is “sued in his official capacity as the representative of the State of

California charged with the enforcement of state laws . . . .” But this “generalized

duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible

for enforcing the challenged provision” is not enough to subject the Attorney

General to suit. L.A. Cnty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992). And

Plaintiffs identify no ongoing violation of federal law, as the unions have

1
  Appellants filed motions for judicial notice of the Attorney General’s motion for
intervention in a pending case before the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The district court case is not relevant, however, as it involves a
different state law. As such, the Motion for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 46, Case No.
23-55206, and the Motion for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 39, Case No. 23-55369, are
DENIED.

                                            4
processed their membership resignations and refunded all money at issue. See

Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (noting

that courts determine whether Ex parte Young overcomes an Eleventh Amendment

bar to suit by conducting a “straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint

alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized

as prospective” (alteration in original) (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of

Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 (1997) (O’Connor, J., concurring))).

       4. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the unions

for lack of state action. Actions by a private actor may be subject to Section 1983

liability if the plaintiff can show that the conduct was “fairly attributable to the

State.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982). To establish fair

attribution, two criteria must be met: (1) “the deprivation must be caused by the

exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct

imposed the [S]tate or by a person for whom the State is responsible,” and (2) “the

party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a

state actor.” Id.

       First, Plaintiffs’ allegations that the unions failed to timely process their

resignations and notify their municipal employers amount to a “private misuse of a

state statute” that is “contrary to the relevant policy articulated by the State.”

Wright, 48 F.4th at 1123 (quoting Lugar, 457 U.S. at 940–41). As such, Plaintiffs

                                            5
cannot satisfy the first Lugar prong.

      Second, we reject Plaintiffs’ argument that the unions are state actors under

the “joint action” or “governmental nexus” tests. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.,

698 F.3d 1128, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). We have held that the mere fact that a state

transmits dues payments to a union does not give rise to a Section 1983 claim

against a union under these tests. Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 947–49 (9th Cir.

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021); see also Wright, 48 F.4th at 1122 n.6

(noting that the joint action test “largely subsume[s]” the governmental nexus test

(quoting Naoko Ohno v. Yuko Yasuma, 723 F.3d 984, 996 n.13 (9th Cir. 2013))).

And a state employer’s “ministerial processing of payroll deductions” does not

create a sufficient nexus between the state and a union to subject the union to

Section 1983 liability. Belgau, 975 F.3d at 948; see also Wright, 48 F.4th at 1123–

24. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the second Lugar prong.

      5. The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the

municipalities for failure to establish Monell liability. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Plaintiffs do not allege that

the municipalities intended to withhold unauthorized dues. See Ochoa v. Pub.

Consulting Grp., Inc., 48 F.4th 1102, 1110 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct.

783 (2023). Nor have Plaintiffs alleged that the municipalities were “even aware

that the deductions were unauthorized.” Id. We have noted that “Janus imposes no

                                          6
affirmative duty on government entities to ensure that membership agreements and

dues deductions are genuine,” and “does not require that [a state] ensure the

accuracy of [a union’s] certification of those employees who have authorized dues

deductions.” Wright, 48 F.4th at 1125 (citing Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., &

Mun. Emps., Council 31, 585 U.S. 878, 929–30 (2018)).

      Plaintiffs also cannot point to any deliberate choice the municipalities made,

as the municipalities had to comply with California state law requiring them to

deduct dues in reliance on the unions’ representations. See Connick v. Thompson,

563 U.S. 51, 60 (2011) (“[U]nder § 1983, local governments are responsible only

for ‘their own illegal acts.’” (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479

(1986))); Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1075 (9th Cir. 2016) (en

banc) (“The custom or policy must be a ‘deliberate choice to follow a course of

action . . . made from among various alternatives by the official or officials

responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in

question.’” (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          7