Gustave William Link v. Pile Drivers Union Local 34;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVE WILLIAM LINK,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PILE DRIVERS UNION LOCAL 34; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-16899
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01382-MHP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
JAN 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-16899 2
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.

-- 2 of 2 --