George Feldman v. BUDDY BOY INC., DBA Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop; FRANCIS ALLEN

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).
The Honorable David A. Ezra, U.S. District Judge for the District of***
Hawaii, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGE FELDMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BUDDY BOY INC., DBA Capriotti’s
Sandwich Shop; FRANCIS ALLEN,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16594
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01195-KJD-PAL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District
Judge.***
FILED
DEC 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiff George Feldman appeals the district court’s decision granting
Buddy Boy, Inc.’s motion to dismiss on the basis that it employed fewer than
fifteen employees and thus was not subject to suit under Title VII.
I
Contrary to Feldman’s assertions, Buddy Boy and other members of the
Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop franchise were not operating as an integrated enterprise,
and their personnel cannot be aggregated to meet the employee-numerosity
requirement in Title VII. See Morgan v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 884 F.2d 1211, 1214
(9th Cir. 1989) (finding no centralized control of labor relations, and thus no
integrated enterprise, where one company had no control over the personnel
decisions of another); see also Herman v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of
Am., 60 F.3d 1375, 1383–84 (9th Cir. 1995) (concluding that a local union chapter
and the larger international union were not a common enterprise even though the
local union paid dues to the international union, the international union had the
power to dissolve the local union or place it in a trusteeship, and the local union
was required to follow the rules of the international union). As Feldman does not
contest the fact that Buddy Boy alone employed fewer than the threshold fifteen
employees, he cannot meet an essential element of Title VII, and his claim was
properly dismissed. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 504, 516 (2006).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
II
Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Feldman’s request for additional discovery on the integrated enterprise issue.
Feldman cannot point to any specific facts that, if uncovered, would change the
outcome of the integrated enterprise analysis, and thus he cannot make a clear
showing that the denial of discovery resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to
his claim. See Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --