April Bain v. California Teachers Ass'n, 891 F.3d 1206

Background

Plaintiffs (public school teachers) sued their teachers’ unions and sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the unions’ requirement that members pay fees that fund political/ideological activities violated the First Amendment because the unions function as state actors as exclusive bargaining representatives under California law.
California permits exclusive representative unions and allows deduction of chargeable fees from nonmembers; union members may be required by internal rules to pay additional non-chargeable fees that fund political/ideological activities and receive members-only benefits.
Plaintiffs originally were union members who joined and later resigned or became ineligible (two left teaching; one was promoted), and by the time of appeal none retained union membership.
The district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to show the unions were state actors and thus no viable First Amendment claim; Plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal the Ninth Circuit held the appeal moot because plaintiffs no longer had a concrete, redressable injury; it rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to recharacterize their relief to seek restitution and rejected speculative standing for possible future rejoining.
Plaintiffs moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 to add the Association of American Educators (AAE) as a plaintiff on appeal; the Ninth Circuit held Rule 21 cannot be used to resurrect a moot appeal and, alternatively, AAE failed the joinder criteria.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unions’ internal rule requiring members to pay non‑chargeable political fees is state action such that First Amendment limits apply	Unions, as state‑authorized exclusive bargaining representatives, are state actors; requiring members to pay political fees coerces speech	Union actions are private; California’s agency‑shop scheme does not compel nonmembers to fund political activity and the membership rules are private	Dismissal affirmed below: Plaintiffs failed to show unions were state actors; no viable First Amendment claim
Whether plaintiffs’ appeal remained justiciable after they disassociated from unions	Plaintiffs argued a live controversy persists via (a) broad prayer for "such additional relief," (b) possible restitution, or (c) Bhakta’s alleged potential to rejoin	Unions argued plaintiffs lost injury‑in‑fact and the appeal was moot	Mootness: appeal dismissed—no standing; late pursuit of monetary restitution not previously pleaded cannot save appeal; speculative future reemployment insufficient
Whether a late, unpled claim for restitution/money damages can be used to avoid mootness	Plaintiffs urged conversion of their equitable/declaratory claims into restitution to preserve jurisdiction	Unions argued plaintiffs never sought damages in district court and raising restitution on appeal is improper and prejudicial	Denied: Ninth Circuit follows precedent refusing to consider damages asserted for first time on appeal to defeat mootness
Whether Rule 21 joinder can revive a moot appeal by adding AAE as a plaintiff on appeal	Plaintiffs/AAE moved to add AAE to preserve the case; argued AAE has standing and seeks same relief	Unions opposed; argued Rule 21 cannot cure mootness and AAE’s interests diverge, causing prejudice	Denied: Rule 21 cannot be used to resurrect a moot case on appeal; alternatively, AAE would fail Rule 21 joinder criteria because its interests conflict with original plaintiffs and would prejudice defendants

Key Cases Cited

Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177 (2007) (public‑sector unions may participate in elections but agency fees raise First Amendment concerns)
Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) (unions cannot compel nonmembers to fund political/ideological activities)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury‑in‑fact, causation, redressability)
Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, 260 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2001) (court will not consider damages asserted for the first time on appeal to avoid mootness)
Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) (distinguishing equitable relief from legal damages and requiring notice of damages claim below)
Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415 (1952) (Rule 21 joinder on appeal is rare but sometimes allowed to cure jurisdictional defects)
Newman‑Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo‑Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (joinder doctrines and exceptions for jurisdictional cures; exercise sparingly)
Board of School Comm’rs of City of Indianapolis v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128 (1975) ( Supreme Court refused to substitute plaintiffs on appeal where class was not certified; mootness not cured by replacing parties)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (speculative or contingent future injury insufficient for standing)
U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur of lower court judgment is extraordinary equitable remedy; parties who moot their own appeals bear equitable consequences)