UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MELISSA KAY COOK, Individually; No. 16-55968 MELISSA KAY COOK, as Guardian Ad Litem of Baby A, Baby B, and Baby D.C. No. C, 2:16-cv-00742- Plaintiffs-Appellants, ODW-AFM

v. OPINION CYNTHIA ANNE HARDING, M.P.H., Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, in her official capacity; JEFFERY D. GUNZENHAUSER, M.D., M.H.P., Health Officer and Medical Director for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; DEAN C. LOGAN, Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk for Los Angeles County in his official capacity; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of the State of California; KAREN SMITH, M.D., M.P.H., Director and State Public Health Officer for the California Department of Public Health; C. M., an adult male believed to be the genetic father of Baby A, Baby B and Baby C; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL; PANORAMA CITY 2 COOK V. HARDING

MEDICAL CENTER; PAYMAN ROSHAN, Senior Vice President and Patient Administrator of Panorama City Medical Center; XAVIER BECERRA, * Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 9, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed January 12, 2018

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Wiley Y. Daniel, ** District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt

* Xavier Becerra is substituted for his predecessor, Kamala Harris. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** The Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel, United States District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Colorado, sitting by designation. COOK V. HARDING 3

SUMMARY ***

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed, on issue preclusion grounds, the district court’s dismissal of an action challenging the constitutionality of California Family Code Section 7962, which codified California cases that found gestational surrogacy contracts enforceable.

The panel first held that the district court was wrong to abstain from hearing this case under Younger v. Harris, 401U.S.37(1971). The panel held that this case did not fall within the two limited categories of civil cases that define Younger’s scope, as set forth in Sprint Commc’ns., Inc. v. Jacobs, 134S. Ct.584, 593-94 (2013). Thus, the panel determined that plaintiff’s then pending state court constitutional challenge to Section 7962 was neither a civil enforcement proceeding, nor was it within the category of cases that involve the State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.

The panel affirmed the district court on the basis that the subsequent state court decision on the merits of plaintiff’s constitutional claims precluded further litigation of the issues in federal court. The panel stated that it was required to give the same preclusive effect to a California Court of Appeal’s judgment involving plaintiff’s claims as California courts would. The panel determined that given the Court of Appeal’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion, which

*** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 COOK V. HARDING addressed each of plaintiff’s constitutional challenges, there was no question that the constitutional claims were necessarily decided in the state court proceeding.

COUNSEL Harold J. Cassidy (argued), Joseph Zakhary, and Thomas J. Viggiano, The Cassidy Law Firm, Shrewsbury, New Jersey; Michael W. Caspino and Robert M. Dato,