Gabriele v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, No. 2:19-cv-00292 WBS KJN
| Decision Date | 11 June 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:19-cv-00292 WBS KJN |
| Citation | 466 F.Supp.3d 1095 |
| Parties | Mark GABRIELE; Jen-Fang Lee; Stacy Penning; Charles Friedrichs, as individuals, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1000 ; Service Employees International Union, Local 1020; National Education Association of the United States ; California Teachers Association; California Faculty Association, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
Bradford G. Hughes, Clark Hill PLC, Los Angeles, CA, Daniel Dulworth, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Clark Hill, PLC, Detroit, MI, Gregory N. Longworth, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Clark Hill, PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, John J. Bursch, PHV, Pro Hac Vice, Bursch Law PLLC, Caledonia, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Scott A. Kronland, Jeffrey B. Demain, Eric Prince Brown, Altschuler Berzon, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs bring this action against Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 ("Local 1000" or "union defendant"), Service Employees International Union, Local 1020, the National Education Association of the United States, the California Teachers Association, and the California Faculty Association, alleging that defendants unlawfully deducted agency fees from their paychecks prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 201 L.Ed.2d 924 (2018). Before the court is defendant Local 1000's motion to dismiss (Docket No. 89).
The court previously dismissed the claims of all but plaintiffs Mark Gabriele and Jen-Fang Lee against Local 1000. (Docket No. 30.) Gabriele and Lee were at all relevant times employees of the State of California. (First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶¶ 1, 2 (Docket No. 17).) Local 1000 is plaintiffs' exclusive collective bargaining representative. (Id. ¶ 5.) Although plaintiffs chose not to be members of Local 1000, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, plaintiffs' employers withheld fair-share fees from their wages and paid those fees to union defendant Local 1000. (Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 15.)
On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Janus and held that payment to a union may not be collected from an employee without the employee's affirmative consent. 138 S. Ct. at 2486. Plaintiffs then filed suit alleging the following causes of action: (1) violation of plaintiffs First Amendment right, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (2) conversion; and (3) restitution. (See generally FAC.) Plaintiffs request a refund of fees collected, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. (Id. ¶ 45.) Defendants now move to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment providing that the collection of agency fees, and any state statute or collective bargaining agreement that provides for such a collection, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. (Id. ¶ 45(B).) Plaintiffs also ask the court to enjoin defendants from collecting or receiving agency fees. (Id. ¶ 45(C).)
For the following reasons, the court finds that plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot because the Supreme Court in Janus already declared all collections of agency fees to be unconstitutional and because the collection of agency fees permanently ended immediately after Janus.
Article III grants federal courts authority to adjudicate cases and controversies.
Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 90, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013). "A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a ‘Case’ or ‘Controversy’ for purposes of Article III—‘when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.’ " Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 971–72 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Already, 568 U.S. at 91, 133 S.Ct. 721 ). The party asserting mootness must show that the "allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." Already, 568 U.S. at 91, 133 S.Ct. 721 (quoting Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) ).
At the outset, the court notes that "every other district court to consider this issue has found claims for prospective relief moot after Janus." See Babb v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 378 F. Supp. 3d 857, 871 (C.D. Cal. 2019) (citing Cook v. Brown, 364 F. Supp. 3d 1184, 1188 (D. Or. 2019) ; Carey v. Inslee, 364 F. Supp. 3d 1220, 1225-27 (W.D. Wash. 2019) ; Danielson v. Inslee, 345 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1339-40 (W.D. Wash. 2018) ); see also Penning v. Service Emps. Int'l Union, Local 1021, 424 F.Supp.3d 684, 685 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ; Seidemann v. Prof'l Staff Congress Local 2334, 432 F. Supp. 3d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) ; Lee v. Ohio Educ. Ass'n, 366 F. Supp. 3d 980, 981-82 (N.D. Ohio 2019) ; Crockett v. NEA-Alaska, 367 F. Supp. 3d 996, 1002-03 (D. Alaska 2019) ; Lamberty v. Conn. State Police Union, No. 3:15-cv-378 (VAB), 2018 WL 5115559 at *6-9 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018) ; Danielson v. AFSCME Council 28, 340 F. Supp. 3d 1083, 1084 (W.D. Wash. 2018), aff'd, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019) ; Yohn v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 17-cv-202-JLS-DFM, 2018 WL 5264076, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018).
This court agrees that because it cannot reasonably be expected that the union defendants will resume withholding agency fees in contravention of Janus, plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is moot. The Janus court held that states and public-sector unions cannot compel the payment of agency fees from nonconsenting employees because such a practice violates the First Amendment. 138 S. Ct. at 2486. On June 28, 2018, the day after Janus was decided, the California State Controller's Office cancelled the deduction of agency fees in compliance with Janus. (Ex. 3 (Docket No. 42-2).) The Controller's Office also said that it would refund all June 2018 agency fees. (Id. ) The California Attorney General then issued an advisory statement concerning the Supreme Court's decision in Janus, explaining that the state "may no longer automatically deduct a mandatory agency fee from the salary or wages of a non-member public employee who does not affirmatively choose to financially support the union." (Ex. 4 (Docket No. 42-2).)
Similarly, in-house counsel for Local 1000 has filed an affidavit stating that the union ceased the collection agency fees following Janus. (See Decl. of Anne M. Giese ("Giese Decl.") ¶¶ 3, 9 (Docket No. 42-2).) Union counsel agrees that the entire practice is unconstitutional in light of Janus and that this determination binds the union. (Giese Decl. ¶ 9.) And even if the union decided to withdraw fees in violation of Janus, the union would be incapable of doing so because only the State Controller's Office actually deducts the fees. (Id. ¶ 10.) These circumstances demonstrate that defendant Local 1000 is not likely to withdraw agency fees from nonconsenting employees.
Plaintiffs point out that the California statutes authorizing the deduction of agency fees have not been repealed.
(Opp'n at 1 (Docket No. 46).) However, this court has previously found, under identical circumstances, that the repeal of the California statutes is not a requirement for this court to declare this case moot. See Hamidi v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Local 1000, 386 F. Supp. 3d 1289, 1297 (E.D. Cal. 2019). "The mere presence on the statute books of an unconstitutional statute, in the absence of enforcement or credible threat of enforcement, does not entitle anyone to sue." Id. (quoting Winsness v. Yocom, 433 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir. 2006) ). For the reasons above, the court finds that such a threat does not exist, and plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is moot.1
"The test for mootness is ‘not relaxed in the declaratory judgment context.’ " Id. at 1295 (quoting Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Plaintiffs must demonstrate that "a substantial controversy ... of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment" exists. Id. (quoting Gator.com, 398 F.3d at 1129 ).
Applying this standard here, the court finds that plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief is also moot. The complaint requests declaratory judgment providing that it is "unconstitutional under the First Amendment ... to withhold or require payment of fair share service fees or agency fees from [p]laintiffs"; that the state statutes "that allow the imposition of fair share service fees are unconstitutional under the First Amendment [and] null and void]"; and that "any collective bargaining agreement provision imposing fair share service fees or agency fees against [p]laintiffs ... is unconstitutional under the First Amendment [and] null and void." (FAC ¶ 45(B).) The action plaintiffs object to -- the nonconsensual deduction of agency fees -- ceased months before plaintiffs filed suit, however. At this point, the controversy is neither sufficiently immediate nor real enough to warrant a declaratory judgment.
Plaintiffs argue that neither the unions nor the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB") has declared anything unconstitutional and that Janus did not address the California statutes, specifically. Again, however, given the circumstances described above, it cannot reasonably be expected that these statutes will be used to collect fees in contravention of Janus in the future. "[T]he existence of potentially problematic agreements and laws is not sufficient to overcome mootness." Cf. Cook, 364 F. Supp. 3d at 1190 (). The court will therefore dismiss plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief as moot.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Trinh v. Homan, Case No.: SACV 18-00316-CJC(GJSx)
-
Lamberty v. Conn. State Police Union
...reasonably expected to recur." (internal quotation marks, citations and alterations omitted)); Gabriele v. Serv. Empls. Int'l Union, Local 1000, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1098-99 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (denying claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot, finding that "the repeal of the Cali......