Georgia Babb; v. California Teachers Association;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGIA BABB; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
ASSOCIATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA,
Intervenor-Defendant-
Appellee.
No. 19-55692
D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00994-JLS-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
* 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.
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-55692
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Georgia Babb, John J. Frangiamore, Jr., William Happ, Aaron Holbrook,
Michelle Pecanic-Lee, David Schmus, and Abram Van Der Fluit appeal from the
district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action
alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of compulsory agency fees (also
known as fair share fees) paid to California Teachers Association, United Teachers
Los Angeles, and National Education Association. 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, 141 S. Ct. 1265 (2021). We affirm.
The parties agree that this court’s intervening decision in Danielson v.
Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019), controls the outcome of this appeal.
The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action 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, 2486
(2018). Danielson, 945 F.3d at 1097-99, 1102-03 (explaining that plaintiffs’
monetary relief claim was for damages and not restitution, but “[e]ven accepting
Plaintiffs’ restitutionary premise, the equities do not weigh in favor of requiring a
refund of all agency fees collected pre-Janus”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-55692
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).
Appellees’ motion for summary affirmance (Docket Entry No. 45) is denied
as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --