NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NO. 846, AFL-CIO, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornam e ntal and Reinforcing Iron Workers, By and Through Jose Mendoza, In His Representative Capacity as Business Manager; et al.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. GULF COAST REBAR, INC., fka Gulf Coast Placers, Inc., a Florida Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant. No. 16-35651 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00658-AC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Sim on, District Judge, Presiding Subm itted June 8, 2018 * * Portland, Oregon 

# FILED

JUN 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

* * The panel unanim ously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argum e nt. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).Before: GRABER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, * * * District

Judge. Defendant Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., is a party to a collective bargaining agreem ent with Plaintiff Regional Local Union No. 846, AFL-CIO, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornam ental and Reinforcing Iron Workers ("Union"). Plaintiffs Regional District Council Welfare Plan and Trust, Regional District Council Retirem ent Plan and Trust, Regional District Council Training Trust, and Regional District Council Vacation Trust Fund ("Trusts") are ERISA trusts to which Defendant m akes contributions. In this action, the Trusts sought to obtain fringe benefit contributions that they claim ed Defendant owed (Count I of the operative com plaint). The Union sought to recover dam ages that it claim ed Defendant owed for dues and working

assessm ents, as required by the collective bargaining agreem ent (Count II of the operative com

plaint). The collective bargaining agreem e nt contains a m andatory arbitration clause that binds "any em ployee or the Union" but not the Trusts. The district court issued an Opinion and Order, but no separate judgm ent. The Opinion and Order granted Defendant’s m otion to com pel arbitration and, accordingly, dism issed Count II without prejudice. But the court m erely stayed the Trusts’

* * * The Honorable Edward R. Korm an, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2Count I claim s. Defendant appeals. Because we conclude that we lack

jurisdiction, we dism iss the appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides, as relevant here: When an action presents m ore than one claim for relief . . . or when m ultiple parties are involved, the court m ay direct entry of a final judgm ent as to one or m ore, but fewer than all, claim s or parties only if the court expressly determ ines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claim s or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claim s or parties . . . . (Em phases added.) The Opinion and Order did not adjudicate or dism iss the Trusts’ claim s. Because the district court did not m ake an express determ ination that there is no just reason for delay in resolving the Union’s claim s, the Opinion and Order did not end the action. For that reason, we lack jurisdiction. SEC v. Capital Consultants LLC, 453 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam ). To support its argum ent that the Union’s claim is im m ediately appealable, Defendant relies on International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em ployee & Moving Picture Technicians, IATSE Local 720 v. InSync Show Productions, Inc., 801 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2015). But International Alliance contradicts Defendant’s argum ent. There, we observed that Goodall–Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers of Am erica, A.F.L. Local 1802, 353 U.S. 550 (1957), "perm its review of

3appeals from orders com pelling arbitration as the ‘full relief sought’ in" Labor

Managem ent Relations Act cases. Int’l All., 801 F.3d at 1038 (em phasis added) (quoting Goodall-Sanford, 353 U.S. at 551) (collecting cases). We also held that, in the context of both the LMRA and the Federal Arbitration Act, "a district court presented with a petition to com pel arbitration and no other claim s cannot prevent appellate review of an order com pelling arbitration by issuing a stay." Id. at 1041 (em phasis added). Here, the court was presented with additional claim s, and the stay pertained to those separate claim s and not to the Union’s LMRA claim

. Appeal DISMISSED.

4