Murray

Murray v. Local 2620, District Council 57, American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees

Good Law
2000 WL 635795·164 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2359·192 F.R.D. 629·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8744
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 17, 2000No. C-99-3668 MHPCalifornia4,924 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Patel, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Robert Murray filed a class action complaint on July 30, 1999 against Local 2620 and other defendants alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Murray alleges that Local 2620 has not complied with the requirements for collection of fees from workers who are not members of the union but are benefitted by the union’s collective bargaining agreements. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiff alleges violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292, 106 S.Ct. 1066 , 89 L.Ed.2d 232 (1986). Plaintiff now moves for certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) or 23(b)(2) class of all individuals who, at any time since July 1, 1998, were state employees in State Bargaining Unit 19 1 , were not union members, and who had “fair share fees” taken from their pay. 2 Having considered the parties’ arguments and submissions, and for the reasons set forth below, the court enters the following memorandum and order.

BACKGROUND

1. Facts

Murray works for the State of California as a Health and Social Service Professional. Local 2620 is the monopoly bargaining…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.