Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01382-MHP. Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding.
GUSTAVE WILLIAM LINK, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, San Leandro, CA.
For PILE DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 34, NOTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS REGIONAL COUNCIL TRUST FUND (ERISA), CARPENTERS 46 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES - JOINT APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING COMMITEE (JATC), JOHN BULLOCK, Executive Officer, Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (JATC), STEVE TILTON, Union President, Pile Drivers Union Local 34, ROBERT ALVARADO, Executive Officer, Northern California Regional Council Trust Funds (ERISA), Defendants - Appellees: Sandra Rae Benson, Roberta D. Perkins, WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD, Alameda, CA.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Gustave William Link appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging, among other claims, violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (the " Act" ). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and may affirm on grounds supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Dismissal of Link's claims under the Act was proper based on collateral estoppel because Link litigated the issue of whether he had failed to exhaust his intra-union remedies as to this claim in a prior litigation. See Link v. Rhodes, 315 Fed.Appx. 624, 625-26 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Offshore Sportswear, Inc. v. Vuarnet Int'l, B.V., 114 F.3d 848, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth elements of collateral estoppel and noting that it applies even where dismissal is not on the merits of the underlying claims if " the issue that led to dismissal was adjudicated on its merits and was conclusively determined" ).
Link's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Arguments raised for the first time on reply, along with other issues not expressly addressed in Link's opening brief, and are deemed waived. See Graves v. Arpaio, 623 F.3d 1043, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.