NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERRY C. COOLEY, on behalf of himself No. 19-16498
and all others similarly situated,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:18-cv-02961-JAM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION;
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES, as an
individual defendant and as Representative
of the Class of all Affiliate Associations of
the California Statewide Law Enforcement
Association,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2022
Portland, Oregon
Before: PAEZ and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Appellant Terry Cooley appeals the district court’s order granting
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We affirm.
1. The district court properly found that Cooley’s membership application met
the essential elements of a contract. United States ex rel. Oliver v. Parsons Co., 195
F.3d 457, 462 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Cal. Civ. Code § 1550). Both Cooley and
CSLEA manifested consent to the contract—Cooley by signing the application and
CSLEA by treating Cooley as a union member. Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014). And the benefits of union membership were
sufficient consideration. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1605; N.L.R.B. v. U.S. Postal Service,
827 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir. 1987).
2. The district court properly found Cooley was bound to maintain union
membership until June 1, 2019 under the maintenance of membership provision in
the CBA. Under California law, “[a] voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a
transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as
the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.” Cal. Civ. Code.
§ 1589. California law also recognizes implied contracts supported by conduct from
which a promise can be inferred. Id. § 1621.
Cooley could have resigned from his union membership on June 1, 2016 but
continued to allow union dues to be remitted from his paycheck and accept the
benefits of union membership for nearly two years until he first attempted to resign
2
in 2018. Cooley’s performance and acceptance of union membership benefits
sufficiently establish that he was bound to refrain from resigning until the 30-day
window in 2019 opened on June 1, 2019. The district court thus properly dismissed
Cooley’s state law claims.
3. The district court properly concluded that Cooley does not have a First
Amendment right to resign from his union. Although the freedom of association
contained within the First Amendment includes the freedom against compelled
associations, none of the cases cited to the district court or to this Court establish
that there is a constitutional right to end voluntary contractual associations. See, e.g.,
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984); Abood v. Detroit Board of
Education, 431 U.S. 209, 234-35 (1977); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S.
640, 648 (2000); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 672 (1991). Cooley
agreed to become a member of CSLEA subject to the stated membership resignation
limitations and the First Amendment cannot and does not erase that voluntary
association.
4. The district court did not err in dismissing Cooley’s § 1983 claims against
CSLEA. Cooley failed to show that he was deprived of a constitutional right as a
result of state action and that CSLEA was fairly attributed as a state actor. Although
the district court did not have the decision in Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir.
3
2020), when making its determination, Belgau controls this Court’s analysis and the
district court’s dismissal must be affirmed.
5. The district court properly dismissed Cooley’s claim for a refund of the union
dues he paid before the decision in Janus v. Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty., and Mun.
Emps., Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018). Belgau, 975 F.2d at 946-49. As Cooley
conceded in his briefing, this Court’s decision in Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096
(9th Cir. 2019), precludes recovery of such fees under § 1983. Danielson, 945 F.3d
at 1104.
AFFIRMED.
4
Terry Cooley v. Ca Statewide Law Enforcement
Combined Opinion