Patricia Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees’ Association, Afscme Local 152,afl-Cio;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICIA GROSSMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HAWAII GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES’
ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL
152,AFL-CIO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
RUSSELL A. SUZUKI, in his official
capacity as Attorney General of Hawaii,
Defendant.
No. 20-15356
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00493-DKW-RT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
* 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).
FILED
JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-15356
Patricia Grossman appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in
her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union
membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a decision on cross motions for summary judgment. JL Beverage Co., LLC v.
Jim Beam Brands Co., 828 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2016). We may affirm on
any ground supported by the record. Enlow v. Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co., 389
F.3d 802, 811 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Grossman’s claim
seeking prospective relief because such claim is moot. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers
Ass’n, 891 F.3d 1206, 1211-15 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiffs’ claims for
prospective relief moot when they resigned their union membership and presented
no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future).
The district court properly dismissed Grossman’s First Amendment claim
challenging the exclusive bargaining representation arrangement for Hawaii public
employees because Grossman failed to allege a plausible claim. See Mentele v.
Inslee, 916 F.3d 783, 790-91 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that exclusive bargaining
arrangement is constitutionally permissible); Bain, 891 F.3d at 1211 (setting forth
standard of review for motion to dismiss).
The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Belgau v. Inslee,
975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-15356
21, 2021), controls the outcome of Grossman’s First Amendment claim arising
from the collection of union dues under her membership agreement. We affirm the
district court’s summary judgment because Grossman affirmatively and voluntarily
consented to the deduction of union dues. See Belgau, 975 F.3d at 950-52
(concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of
State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), did not
extend a First Amendment right to avoid paying union dues that were agreed upon
under validly entered union membership agreements).
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 of 3 --