386 F. Supp. 3d 1300
E.D. Cal.2019Background
- Nine California state employees sued AFSCME affiliates, state officials, and transit entities claiming unconstitutional compulsion of payments and barriers to resigning union membership after Janus.
- Plaintiffs seek a full refund of agency fees (or equivalent portions of dues) collected before Janus and declaratory/injunctive relief regarding payroll deductions and resignation procedures.
- Union defendants moved to partially dismiss: seeking dismissal of AFSCME International and Local 3634, all claims by Timothy Porter, and pre-Janus monetary claims for agency fees.
- Court assumed Janus has full retroactive effect and that defendants acted under color of state law for purposes of the motion, but considered affirmative defenses raised on the pleadings.
- Court concluded unions are entitled to a good-faith defense for collecting agency fees under then-prevailing law, and that plaintiffs’ refund claim is legal in substance (money from general assets) and barred by good-faith/reliance and equitable considerations.
- Court found Porter lacked Article III standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief because his alleged injuries were speculative and not certainly impending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of AFSCME International | AFSCME International was named as a defendant (precautionary). | No factual allegations against AFSCME International. | Dismissed with prejudice. |
| Refund of pre-Janus agency fees/dues | Plaintiffs seek full restitution of fees/dues paid before Janus as equitable relief under § 1983. | Unions relied in good faith on binding precedent/statute; good-faith defense bars damages; remedy is legal not equitable. | Refund claim dismissed with prejudice (remedy deemed legal and barred by good-faith/reliance). |
| Availability of equitable restitution (traceability) | Plaintiffs argue equitable disgorgement should be available despite good-faith reliance. | Fees were spent/dissipated and not held in segregated fund; reliance interests and disruption counsel against disgorgement. | Even in equity, restitution is inappropriate given reliance, dissipation, and unfairness. |
| Porter’s declaratory/injunctive claims | Porter alleges statutory scheme prevents him from stopping payroll deductions after resigning; seeks declarations/injunctions. | Porter lacks Article III standing; alleged injuries speculative and not certainly impending. | Porter’s claims dismissed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (established constitutionality of agency fees pre-Janus)
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (held that collecting agency fees from nonconsenting public employees violates the First Amendment)
- Montanile v. Board of Trustees of National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, 136 S. Ct. 651 (money recovery from general assets is a legal remedy; tracing required for equitable relief)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (threatened injury must be certainly impending)
- Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (equity allows molds of relief to necessities of the case)
- Locke v. Karass, 555 U.S. 207 (describing Abood’s rule as a general First Amendment principle)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (good-faith defense available to private actors under § 1983)