UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEAN ALLEN; STANLEY GRAHAM; No. 19-17217 BRADLEY TAYLOR; JUANITA WIGGINS; JAMES KIRKLAND; ERIC D.C. No. LIDDLE; ANTONIO RICHARDSON, 2:18-cv-02230- Plaintiffs-Appellants, MCE-CKD

v. OPINION SANTA CLARA COUNTY CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION; COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA; ROB BONTA, * Defendants-Appellees,

and

MARK GREGERSEN; ERIC BANKS; PRISCILLA WINSLOW; ERICH SHINERS; ARTHUR A. KRANTZ, Defendants,

v.

WILLIAM D. BRICE, Movant.

* Rob Bonta has been substituted for his predecessor, Xavier Becerra, as California Attorney General under Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). 2 ALLEN V. SANTA CLARA CTY. CPOA

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed June 23, 2022

Before: Bridget S. Bade and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges, and William K. Sessions III, ** District Judge.

Per Curiam Opinion; Concurrence by Judge Bumatay

SUMMARY ***

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a claim for monetary relief bought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by public-sector employees against their union and the County of Santa Clara, holding that municipalities are entitled to a good faith defense to a suit for a refund of mandatory agency fees under § 1983.

The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District ** Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ALLEN V. SANTA CLARA CTY. CPOA 3

In light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018), which held that the compulsory collection of agency fees by unions violates the First Amendment, several public-sector employees (“Employees”) filed a class action lawsuit under § 1983 seeking to retroactively recover any agency fees taken from their salaries by the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers Association and Santa Clara County. The district court dismissed the action against both parties, holding that their “good faith” reliance on pre- Janus law meant that they need not return the agency fees.

Following the district court’s dismissal, this court held in Danielson v. Inslee, 945 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019), that private parties, including unions, may invoke an affirmative defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under § 1983, where they acted in direct reliance on then- binding Supreme Court precedent and presumptively-valid state law. The Employees conceded that Danielson resolved their claims against their union.

The panel concluded that, because unions get a good faith defense under Danielson to a claim for a refund of pre- Janus agency fees, and municipalities’ tort liability for proprietary actions is the same as private parties, Santa Clara County was also entitled to a good faith defense to retrospective § 1983 liability for collecting pre-Janus agency fees. The panel explained that Danielson’s reasoning— which relied on precedent and principles of equality and fairness—also applied with equal force to municipalities.

Concurring, Judge Bumatay agreed that the panel was bound by Danielson, but wrote that Danielson deviated from precedent by assert