Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association
Case number: 1:18-cv-01660
Status: Terminated
Important dates
Filed: Dec. 6, 2018
District court decision:
April 22, 2021
District court outcome
The court severed the claims and issued a new case number.

This case is one of over a hundred public-sector union lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME. These pages were updated through February 2023 and may not reflect subsequent case developments. For more information about Ballotpedia's coverage of public-sector union policy in the United States, click here. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 6, 2018. The plaintiffs' claim challenged the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements made prior to Janus v. AFSCME allowing continued fee deductions after union membership withdrawal. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, a refund of union and agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. On April 22, 2021, the court severed the claims and issued a new case number for Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al.[1][2][3][4][5]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The parties to the suit: The plaintiffs were Cesar Campos, Hugh Yang, Latana Chandavong, and Neng Her. The defendants were the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association, the County of Fresno, Eric Banks, Xavier Becerra (D), Arthur Krantz, Erich Shiners, and Priscilla Winslow.
  • The issue: In light of Janus v. AFSCME, can public-sector unions be held liable for refunding union dues after union membership withdrawal if there is a pre-existing agreement for fees deduction throughout a given time period?
  • The presiding judge(s): Judge Anthony Ishii presided over the district court proceedings. Ishii was appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).
  • The outcome: On April 22, 2021, the court severed the claims and issued a new case number for Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al.

    • Procedural history

    The plaintiffs were Cesar Campos, Hugh Yang, Latana Chandavong, and Neng Her. Cesar Campos was represented by attorneys from Benbrook Law Group, Mitchell Law, PLLC, and Talcott Franklin P.C. The defendants were the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association, the County of Fresno, Eric Banks, Xavier Becerra (D), Arthur Krantz, Erich Shiners, and Priscilla Winslow. The Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association was represented by counsel from Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP.[1][2] Below is a brief procedural history of the lawsuit:[1][2][3][4][5]

    • December 6, 2018: The plaintiffs in Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association first filed their lawsuit on December 6, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, challenging the constitutionality of union fee deduction agreements made prior to Janus v. AFSCME allowing continued fee deductions after union membership withdrawal. The plaintiffs requested an injunction against enforcement of the above agreements, a refund of union and agency fees, costs, and attorney’s fees. The complaint included a total of five claims for relief, which was increased to six in the first amended complaint.
    • May 12, 2019: The plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.
    • June 24, 2019: The defendants filed an answer to the plaintiffs' first amended complaint and motions to dismiss, to which the plaintiffs responded.
    • February 27, 2020: The court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim with leave to amend portions within 21 days.
    • March 19, 2020: The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
    • June 2, 2020: The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.
    • November 11, 2020: The court issued an order on the defendants' motions to dismiss, an order to show cause, and an order vacating hearing.
    • December 17, 2020: The court issued an order dismissing claims in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint and ordering additional briefing.
    • April 22, 2021: The court severed the claims of Chandavong and Her, ordered an amended complaint in the new case, and terminated Campos.

    For a list of available case documents, click here.

    Decision

    On April 21, 2021, Judge Anthony Ishii wrote:[5]

    “

    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. No further claims or parties will be dismissed as a result of the FDSA’s second motion to dismiss or the supplemental briefing received to date;
    2. The claims contained in the third cause of action as alleged by FDSA non-members Her and Chandavong against the FDSA and the County is SEVERED pursuant to Rule 21;
    3. The Clerk shall ISSUE a new case number for the severed claims of Chandavong and Her with the undersigned and Magistrate Judge Grosjean assigned to the new case;
    4. Within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order, Plaintiffs Her and Chandavong shall file an amended complaint as described in this order against the FDSA and the County in the newly severed case and use the newly issued case number for all further filings;
    5. The Clerk shall file the following documents from this case’s docket to the newly severed case’s docket: Document Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, 24, 39, 44, 45, 48, 54, 56, 62, 65, 67, 68, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84;
    6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims in this case; and
    7. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.[6]

    		”

    Ishii joined the court in 1997 after being appointed by President Bill Clinton (D).

    Legal context

    Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

    See also: Janus v. AFSCME

    On June 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (Janus v. AFSCME), ruling that public-sector unions cannot compel non-member employees to pay fees to cover the costs of non-political union activities.[7]

    This decision overturned precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in 1977. In Abood, the high court held that it was not a violation of employees' free-speech and associational rights to require them to pay fees to support union activities from which they benefited (e.g., collective bargaining, contract administration, etc.). These fees were commonly referred to as agency fees or fair-share fees.[7]

    Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion for the court majority in Janus, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. Alito wrote, "Abood was poorly reasoned. It has led to practical problems and abuse. It is inconsistent with other First Amendment cases and has been undermined by more recent decisions. Developments since Abood was handed down have shed new light on the issue of agency fees, and no reliance interests on the part of public-sector unions are sufficient to justify the perpetuation of the free speech violations that Abood has countenanced for the past 41 years. Abood is therefore overruled."[7]

    Related litigation

    To view a complete list of the public-sector labor lawsuits Ballotpedia tracked between 2019 and 2023, click here.

    Number of federal lawsuits by circuit

    Between 2019 and 2023, Ballotpedia tracked 191 federal lawsuits related to public-sector labor laws. The chart below depicts the number of suits per federal judicial circuit (i.e., the jurisdictions in which the suits originated).

    Public-sector labor lawsuits on Ballotpedia

    See also: Public-sector union policy in the United States, 2018-2023

    Click show to view a list of cases with links to our in-depth coverage.

    v • e
    Public-sector labor lawsuits
    Federal lawsuits

    Adams v. Teamsters Union Local 429 • Akers v. Maryland State Education Association • Aliser v. SEIU California • Allen v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association • Allen v. Santa Clara County Correctional • Anderson v. SEIU Local 503 • Babb v. California Teachers Association • Baisley v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers • Belgau v. Inslee • Bennett v. AFSCME • Bermudez v. SEIU Local 521 • Bierman v. Dayton • Boudreaux v. Louisiana State Bar • Boyle v. SEIU California • Brice v. California Faculty Association • California v. Azar • Campos v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association • Carey v. Inslee • Casanova v. IAM Local 701 • Chandavong et al. v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association et al. • Cook v. Brown • Cooley v. California Statewide Law Enforcement Association • Crowe v. Oregon State Bar • Cruz v. Union Independiente Autentica de Empleados de la Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados • Danielson v. Inslee • Diamond v. Pennsylvania State Education Association • Doughty v. State Employees Association of New Hampshire, SEIU, Local 1984 • Durst v. OEA • Few v. United Teachers Los Angeles • File v. Hickey • Fischer v. Murphy • Fisk v. Inslee • Fizer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Fleck v. Wetch • Grega v. Council of New Jersey State College Locals • Grossman v. Hawaii Government Employees Association • Gruber v. Oregon State Bar • Guppy v. City of Los Angeles • Halloran v. AFSCME Council 5 • Hamidi v. SEIU • Hannay v. Kent State • Hartnett v. Penn. State Education Association • Hendrickson v. AFSCME Council 18 • Hernandez v. AFSCME California • Hoekman v. Education Minnesota • Hough v. SEIU Local 521 • Imhoff v. California Teachers Association • Jackson v. Napolitano • James v. SEIU Local 688 • Janus v. AFSCME • Jarchow v. Wisconsin • Kabler v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1776 Keystone State • Wenzig v. SEIU Local 668 • Kopie v. International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees • Kurk v. Los Rios Classified Employees Association • Lamberty et al. v. Connecticut State Police Union et al. • LaSpina v. SEIU Pennsylvania State Council • Lee v. Ohio Education Association • Leitch v. AFSCME • Littler v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees • Loescher v. Teamsters Local 320 • Lutter v. JNESO • Mandel v. SEIU Local 73 • Marsh v. AFSCME Local 3299 • Martin v. California Teachers Association • Masuo v. AFSCME AFL-CIO • Matthews v. United Teachers of Los Angeles • Mattos v. AFSCME Council 3 • Mayer v. Wallingford-Swathmore School District • McCain v. Ventura County Federation of College Teachers, AFT Local 1828 • McCollum v. NEA-Alaska • McCutcheon v. CWA Local 7076 • McDonald v. Firth • Mendez v. CTA • Miller v. Inslee • Misja v. PSEA • Molina v. SEIU Local 668 • Mooney v. Illinois Education Association • Nearman v. SEIU Local 503 • Neely v. AFSCME Council 13 • Nguyen v. Admin. and Residual Employees Union • Nichols v. Home Care Providers Union • O'Callaghan v. Drake • Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group • Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union • Ogle v. Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME, Local 11 • Oliver v. SEIU Local 668 • Pellegrino v. New York State United Teachers • Penning v. SEIU Local 1021 • Polk v. Yee • Popp v. ALPAI • Piekarski v. AFSCME Council 5 • Quirarte v. UDW AFSCME Local 3930 • Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine • Rizzo-Rupon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141 • Routh v. Inslee • Schaszberger v. AFSCME Council 13 • Schell v. Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices • Schumaker v. Inslee • Seager v. UTLA • Seidemann v. Professional Staff Congress • Smith v. AFSCME Council No. 8 • Smith v. New Jersey Education Association • Smith v. Bieker • Solomon v. AFSCME District Council 37 • Stroeder v. Service Employees International Union, Local 503 • Sweeney v. Raoul • Sweet v. California Association of Psychiatric Technicians • Taylor v. Heath • Thompson v. AFSCME Council 89, Local 4013 • Thompson v. Marietta Education Association • Thulen v. AFSCME • Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Org. • Utke v. University of Connecticut American Association of University Professors • Weyandt v. PSCOA • Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 • Wilford v. National Education Association • Williams v. PSEA • Wolf v. University Professional & Technical Employees • Yates v. Hillsboro Unified School District • Yohn v. California Teachers Association

    See also

    External links

    Case documents

    Trial court

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 PacerMonitor, “Campos et al v. Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, County of Fresno et al,” accessed May 6, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 PacerMonitor, “Plaintiffs’ Class-Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded,” December 6, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 PacerMonitor, “First Amended Complaint,” May 12, 2019
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 PacerMonitor, "Order on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss," February 27, 2020
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 PacerMonitor, "Order Following Additional Briefing and Order Severing Matter," April 21, 2021
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Supreme Court of the United States, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., June 27, 2018
    v • e
    Public-sector union policy in the United States
    Public-sector union policy in the United StatesBPstarlogo.png
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Campos_v._Fresno_Deputy_Sheriff’s_Association&oldid=9203487"