Irene Seager, individually and as representative of the requested classes v. United Teachers Los Angeles;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IRENE SEAGER, individually and as
representative of the requested classes,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED TEACHERS LOS ANGELES; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-55977
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00469-JLS-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Irene Seager appeals from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action alleging a First Amendment claim
arising out of union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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). Appellant’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-55977
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s judgment on the pleadings.
Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). We may affirm on any
ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Because Seager failed to raise an objection to the argument that her claim
seeking prospective relief was moot, she waived the right to challenge the issue on
appeal. Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp., 514 F.3d 1001, 1007 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[I]f
a party fails to raise an objection to an issue before judgment, he or she waives the
right to challenge the issue on appeal.” (citations and internal quotations omitted)).
Dismissal of Seager’s First Amendment claim against United Teachers of
Los Angeles (“UTLA”) was proper because the deduction of union membership
dues arose from private membership agreements between UTLA and Seager, and
“private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional
scrutiny.” Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No.
20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021) (discussing state action).
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);
Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-55977
Seager’s motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --