Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, County of Fresno ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CESAR CAMPOS, LATANA M. CASE NO. 1:18-CV-1660 AWI EPG CHANDAVONG, NENG HER, HUGH 10 YANG, and NICK VANG, ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS AND 11 Plaintiffs ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING 12 v. 13 FRESNO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, COUNTY OF FRESNO, 14 and XAVIER BECERRA in his official capacity as Attorney General of California, 15 Defendants 16 17 18 This is a dispute between current and former members of the Fresno County Sheriff’s 19 Department regarding the collection of union dues by the County of Fresno (“the County”) for the 20 benefit of the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association (“FDSA”). Plaintiffs seek relief under state 21 law theories and Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 22 S.Ct. 2448 (2018) (“Janus”). The active complaint is the Second Amended Complaint. On 23 November 12, 2020, the Court granted in part FDSA’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) combined 24 motion to dismiss. See Doc. No. 74. The Court dismissed the first and third causes of action 25 (which alleged only federal law claims), declined to address the state law claims, and issued an 26 order to show cause why the federal claims against the County should not be dismissed for the 27 same reasons that dismissal was appropriate as to the FDSA. See id. The County and Plaintiffs 28 have now responded. 1 Plaintiff’s Position 2 Plaintiffs agree that the Court’s ruling on the first cause of action also applies to the 3 County. Plaintiffs also agree that the Court’s ruling on the third cause of action (which involved 4 vacation hours transferred from employees to the FDSA by the County) for claims based on post- 5 Janus conduct also applies to the County. However, Plaintiffs argue that the Court dismissed the 6 pre-Janus claims brought by Plaintiffs Her and Chandavong based on the good faith defense. 7 Plaintiffs contend that there are no cases that extend the good faith defense to a governmental 8 entity like the County. Plaintiffs suggest that additional briefing may be appropriate. 9 Defendant’s Position 10 The County contends that Plaintiffs do not identify any cases in which a public employer, 11 acting in compliance with state law and Abood, has been held financially liable for fees or hours 12 collected for the use of a union. The County notes that Danielsen did not address the specific 13 issue because the claims pursued against the named government officials were deemed moot. 14 Further, there are differences between qualified immunity and the good faith defense. Because the 15 good faith defense is grounded in fairness and equity, the County argues that it should be treated 16 no differently from FDSA for purposes of the defense as the County was merely complying with 17 mandatory state laws. Finally, even where a right is applied retroactively, a party may not be 18 entitled to a remedy. Plaintiffs Chandavong and Her received the benefit of the FDSA’s use of the 19 collected vacation hours. The absence of a remedy against the FDSA and the benefit received 20 from the FDSA’s use of the vacation hours both counsel against treating the FDSA and the County 21 different regarding monetary damages. 22 Discussion 23 There is no dispute that the Court’s prior rationale for dismissing the first cause of action 24 and the third cause of action’s post-Janus based claims apply equally to the FDSA and the County. 25 Therefore, for the reasons articulated in the November 2020 dismissal order, the first cause of 26 action and the post-Janus claims within the third cause of action against the County will be 27 dismissed without leave to amend. See Doc. No. 74 28 The only dispute is whether a viable claim for pre-Janus conduct, that is the County taking 1 vacation hours for the use of the FDSA from non-FDSA members Her and Chandavong,1 are 2 subject to dismissal. After consideration, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that additional briefing is 3 appropriate. The parties will be ordered to submit simultaneous briefing that addresses whether 4 any cases have extended the good faith defense to a public employer like the County and whether 5 any cases have held a public employer liable through Janus for dues or vacation hours taken pre- 6 Janus and in conformity with Abood. 7 Additionally, the County’s response noted the Seventh Circuit decision in Janus v. Am. 8 Fed’n of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Council 31, 942 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2019) (“Janus II”). Janus 9 II addressed retroactivity and the good faith defense. Janus II decided to assume that Janus 10 should be applied to the “full sweep of people identified in [Harper v. Virginia Dep’t of Taxation, 11 509 U.S. 86 (1993)] (that is, Mr. Janus himself and all others whose cases were in the pipeline at 12 the time of the [Supreme] Court’s decision [in Janus]).” Janus II, 942 F.3d at 360. Here, the 13 vacation hour claims of Chandavong and Her were not “in the pipeline” when Janus was decided, 14 meaning they were not pending in court at the time Janus was decided. See Janus II, 942 F.3d at 15 359-60. Janus II’s entire discussion of retroactivity suggests that claims that Chandavong and Her 16 may have for vacation hours taken pre-Janus may not rely on Janus to show a violation of the 17 Constitution. Therefore, the parties will be ordered to brief whether Janus can be applied 18 retroactively to the claims of Chandavong and Her for vacation hours taken prior to the Janus 19 decision. 20 21 ORDER 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. The first cause of action in the Second Amended Complaint against the County is 24 DISMISSED without leave to amend; 25 2. The third cause of action for all claims based on post-Janus conduct (that is, conduct 26 1 The SAC alleges that Chandavong successfully resigned from the FDSA in December 2016. The good faith defense 27 bars monetary relief for any vacation hours that were taken from Chandavong prior to the December 2016 resignation. See Danielsen v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore, in light of Plaintiffs’ response to the 28 order to show cause, the only possible claim that Chandavong may have regarding vacation hours transferred to the een NE II IIE ESOS ESI IO 1 occurring after July 1, 2018) is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 2 |3. By January 11, 2021, the parties shall submit simultaneous briefing regarding the three 3 issues discussed above (application of the good faith defense to a public entity, cases in 4 which a public entity has been held liable under Janus for conduct that was consistent with 5 Abood, and whether Janus can be applied retroactively to the pre-Janus based claims of 6 Chandavong and Her); and 7 By January 25, 2021, the parties shall file simultaneous replies to the supplemental 8 briefing. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: _ December 17, 2020 Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27); The parties’ supplemental briefing shall contain sections that expressly address each of the three issues expressly and 2g | distinctly. The Court will construe the failure of a party to address any of these specific issues as an abandonment of any potential argument in that party’s favor with respect to the omitted issue.