Diane Gruber v. Oregon State Bar

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 23-35144
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIANE L. GRUBER; MARK RUNNELS, No. 23-35144

Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01591-JR

v. MEMORANDUM* OREGON STATE BAR, a public corporation; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 2, 2024 Portland, Oregon

Before: OWENS and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and ORRICK,** District Judge.

Diane Gruber and Mark Runnels (“Plaintiffs”) sued the Oregon State Bar

(“OSB”) and its officers (collectively with OSB, “Defendants”), arguing that the

requirement that attorneys join OSB infringes their First Amendment right to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable William Horsley Orrick, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. freedom of association. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of

Defendants. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.

1. We hold in a concurrently filed opinion that OSB is an arm of the state

entitled to sovereign immunity. Crowe v. Or. State Bar, No. 23-35193, slip op.

(9th Cir. August 28, 2024). In light of Crowe, we dismiss the claims against OSB.

2. Gruber has resigned from OSB, so she can no longer pursue prospective

relief against the officer Defendants, and we dismiss her remaining claims for that

reason. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2011)

(en banc) (“[T]o demonstrate an injury-in-fact for standing purposes, a plaintiff

seeking injunctive relief must . . . demonstrate ‘a sufficient likelihood that he will

again be wronged in a similar way.’” (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461

U.S. 95, 111 (1983))); Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853, 868 (9th

Cir. 2017) (“[T]o avoid mootness with respect to a claim for declaratory relief on

the ground that the relief sought will address an ongoing policy, the plaintiff must

show that the policy ‘has adversely affected and continues to affect a present

interest.’” (quoting Super Tire Eng’g Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 125-26

(1974))).

3. Runnels’s sole claim is that the requirement that he join OSB violates his

freedom of association rights even if OSB engages in only “germane” activities.

That claim is clearly foreclosed by precedent. Gardner v. State Bar of Nev., 284

2 F.3d 1040, 1041-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a mandatory bar’s public relations

campaign did not violate a member’s right to freedom of association because the

campaign was germane to the bar’s purposes). We accordingly affirm the district

court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the remaining Defendants on his

claims.

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.