Crouthamel et al v. Walla Walla Public Schools et al, No. 4:2020cv05076 - Document 54 (E.D. Wash. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 44 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. The file in this case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (TR, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Crouthamel et al v. Walla Walla Public Schools et al Doc. 54 1 2 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 3 Jun 23, 2021 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 8 9 CAROLYN CROUTHAMEL, DIANE MCCALLISTER, and JOANNE BAKER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as individuals, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 WALLA WALLA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a Washington public school district; EVERGREEN PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Washington public school district; KENT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Washington public school district; and PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1948, a labor corporation, 13 14 15 16 17 NO: 4:20:-CV-5076-RMP ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 18 Defendants. 19 20 BEFORE THE COURT is a Motion for Reconsideration by Plaintiffs 21 Carolyn Crouthamel, et al., ECF No. 44. Defendants Walla Walla Public Schools, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 et al. filed a response in opposition to reconsideration. ECF No. 45. Plaintiffs did 2 not file a reply. See LCivR 7(e) (providing that the Court may interpret a failure to 3 adhere to the local rules governing motion practice as consent to entry of an 4 adverse order). 5 6 BACKGROUND The Court presumes familiarity with the background and procedural history 7 of this case, as recited in the summary judgment order (“April 22, 2021 Order”). 8 See ECF No. 42. The April 22, 2021 Order directed entry of judgment for 9 Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ federal claims, finding in relevant part that 10 Plaintiffs’ two claims alleging violation of the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. 11 § 1983 were precluded by controlling law of this Circuit, as set forth in Belgau v. 12 Inslee, 975 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2020), reh’g en banc denied, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13 (Oct. 26, 2020), cert. denied, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3373 (June 21, 2021). See ECF 14 Nos. 42 (April 22, 2021 Order); 43 (Judgment). 15 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration on April 26, 2021, 16 alleging that the Court erroneously “disposed of all Plaintiffs’ First Amendment 17 claims based on the incorrect premise that Plaintiffs conceded that the Ninth 18 Circuit’s Belgau decision controls all its First Amendment claims.” ECF No. 44 at 19 3. Plaintiffs argue that while they agree that Belgau forecloses their claim that 20 Defendants violated the First Amendment by deducting union payments from 21 Plaintiffs’ wages without first acquiring a First Amendment waiver, Plaintiffs ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2 1 offered two alternative arguments. Id. at 3–4. Plaintiffs argue that they made a 2 “procedural-related” First Amendment claim that the Ninth Circuit had not 3 addressed in Belgau, and also argued that the membership agreements that provide 4 for dues deductions were “void ab initio for lack of consideration.” Id. 5 Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs’ Motion on May 7, 2021, 6 arguing that Plaintiffs’ basis for seeking reconsideration “is both factually 7 inaccurate and legally irrelevant.” ECF No. 45 at 4. Defendants assert that the 8 Court did not state that Plaintiffs made any concession specific to their 9 “procedural” First Amendment claim. See ECF No. 45 at 4 (quotation marks used 10 by Defendants). Defendants further assert that, as a legal matter, the Court 11 appropriately recognized that “Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are foreclosed 12 by [the holding of Belgau], however Plaintiffs purport to describe those claims.” 13 Id. at 5–6 (citing Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1170 (9th Cir. 2001) (“If a 14 court must decide an issue governed by a prior opinion that constitutes binding 15 authority, the later court is bound to reach the same result.”)). 16 17 18 Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on May 19, 2021. ECF No. 47. LEGAL STANDARD Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal divests a district court of 19 jurisdiction. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) 20 (per curiam). However, a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3 1 postpones the effect of a notice of appeal until the motion for reconsideration is 2 resolved. Fed. R. App. 4(a)(4). 3 Courts in this Circuit disfavor motions for reconsideration and deny them 4 “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 5 newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 6 change in controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 7 1999) (per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “A motion for reconsideration 8 ‘may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time whey 9 they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.’” Marlyn 10 Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 11 2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 12 2000) (emphasis in original)). 13 DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration on the basis that the Court erred by 15 dismissing their First Amendment claims, as Plaintiffs allege, “on the incorrect 16 premise” that Plaintiffs conceded that the Belgau decision controls all of their First 17 Amendment claims. ECF No. 44. However, the Court’s description of what the 18 Plaintiffs conceded was narrow and consistent with what Plaintiffs continue to 19 acknowledge: 20 21 Plaintiffs acknowledge that the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Belgau[] is controlling with respect to their contention in the Complaint that a government violates the First ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4 1 Amendment by deducting union payments from “the wages of public employees who have not waived their First Amendment right to not fund union advocacy.” 2 3 See ECF No. 42 at 14–15 (citing ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 37 at 23); see also ECF No. 44 4 at 3. 5 Furthermore, it is immaterial whether Plaintiffs conceded any other theory of 6 their First Amendment claims because Belgau held that nearly identically situated 7 plaintiffs suffered no violation of their First Amendment rights. See Belgau, 975 8 F.3d at 950–51. Belgau left no opening through which any other theory of 9 Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims could fit, and the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ 10 First Amendment claims “pursuant to the controlling law of this Circuit,” not 11 pursuant to Plaintiffs’ acknowledgement of that law. See ECF No. 42 at 15. 12 Finally, Plaintiffs’ argument that the membership agreements were void for lack of 13 consideration is based in contract, not on the First Amendment. 14 In short, the Court did not find a concession as the Plaintiffs allege, and, 15 more critically, the Court did not rely on Plaintiffs’ concession to conclude that 16 Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims are foreclosed by controlling Ninth Circuit 17 authority. Accordingly, reconsideration is not warranted based on clear error. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 44, is DENIED. 20 2. The file in this case shall remain closed. 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 5 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this 2 Order and provide copies to counsel. 3 DATED June 23, 2021. 4 5 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
