Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00386/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00386-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVE WILLIAM LINK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID RHODES et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-0386 MHP

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On October 25, 2006, this court issued an order dismissing all of plaintiff’s claims in this

action except plaintiff’s claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against

non-individual defendants. The court dismissed plaintiff’s ADA claims against all individual

defendants on the grounds that individuals are not “covered entities” under the ADA. At that time it

was unclear whether plaintiff had pled his ADA claim against individual defendants only, or

whether he had pled the ADA claim against the Union. After oral argument, plaintiff submitted an

EEOC right to sue letter regarding his ADA claim, which the court deemed incorporated into

plaintiff’s amended complaint. However, it was still unclear, based on the right to sue letter,

whether plaintiff had brought his administrative ADA claim against a “covered entity.” The court

therefore ordered plaintiff to submit the document setting forth his original EEOC charge so that the

court could resolve this ambiguity.

Plaintiff subsequently submitted his EEOC file. Based on these documents, plaintiff filed his

initial ADA claim against “Northern California Carpenters Training Center,” which appears to

correspond to named defendant “Northern California Carpenters, AFT, LLC.” In their motion to

Case 3:06-cv-00386-MHP Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, defendants assert that no such entity exists. Assuming that

this entity does exist, it appears to be a training organization, and not “an employer, employment

agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee” covered by the ADA. See 42

U.S.C. § 12111(1). Plaintiff has therefore failed to properly plead an ADA claim against any of the

available defendants.

This court has previously noted that granting plaintiff leave to amend with respect to an

ADA claim would be proper only if plaintiff could meet the ADA’s exhaustion requirement. See

Link v. Rhodes, No. C 06-0386, 2006 WL 1348424, at *11 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2006) (Patel, J.)

(citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117). Plaintiff has therefore been given two opportunities to produce an

EEOC letter related to a “covered entity”—once when this court dismissed plaintiff’s initial

complaint with leave to amend, and again when this court requested additional documentation

following defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. As plaintiff has failed to

do so, the court finds that further leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, no further leave to

amend will be granted. See Klamath-Lake Pharm. Ass’n v. Klamath Med. Serv. Bureau, 701 F.2d

1276, 1293 (9th Cir. 1983).

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s ADA cause of action is DISMISSED. This action is

therefore DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/22/2007 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

District Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Case 3:06-cv-00386-MHP Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 3
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

ENDNOTES

Case 3:06-cv-00386-MHP Document 63 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 3