Opinion

Che' Cook v. Kate Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Apr 27, 2021
Status
Unpublished
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.4%

The opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

APR 27 2021

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHE’ S. COOK; et al., No. 19-35191

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01085-AA

v.

MEMORANDUM*

KATE BROWN, in her official capacity as

Governor of the State of Oregon; KATY

COBA, in her official capacity as Director of

the Oregon Department of Administrative

Services,

Defendants,

and

OREGON AMERICAN FEDERATION OF

STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL

EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 75,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2021**

*

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). Appellants’ request for oral

argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Che’ S. Cook, Clifford H. Elliott, Bethany Harrington, William Lehner,

Carmen Lewis, and Trudy Metzger appeal from the district court’s summary

judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim

arising out of compulsory agency fees (also known as fair share fees) paid to

Oregon American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

(“AFSCME”) Council 75. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo. Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1098 (9th Cir. 2019), cert.

denied, No. 19-1130, 2021 WL 231555 (Jan. 25, 2021). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because a public

sector union can, as a matter of law, “invoke an affirmative defense of good faith

to retrospective monetary liability under section 1983 for the agency fees it

collected” prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation

of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018).

Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1097-99 (“[P]rivate parties may invoke an affirmative

defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

where they acted in direct reliance on then-binding Supreme Court precedent and

presumptively-valid state law.”).

2 19-35191

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.

3 19-35191

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.