Unpublished Disposition, 919 F.2d 145 (9th Cir. 1990)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of one defendant for lack of service of process and the grant of summary judgment in favor of two other defendants. We affirm.

In 1983, the plaintiff filed an action under Labor Management Relations Act Sec. 301 alleging breach of duty of fair representation against several unions. The union defendants included the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO; Local 1147 of the United Brotherhood; and Carpenters 46 Northern Counties Conference Board.

In June 1988, the District Court granted summary judgment for Local 1147 and Carpenters 46. The plaintiff appeals this order in No. 88-15085. In November 1988, the district court ordered that the United Brotherhood be dismissed sua sponte according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) for failure of service of process. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Plaintiff appeals these orders in Nos. 88-15733 and 89-15069. The appeals have been consolidated.¹ 

This court reviews a sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) for abuse of discretion. Townsel v. Contra Costa County, Cal., 820 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1987). Absent proof of a separate service of process on the United Brotherhood, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) authorizes the district court to dismiss that defendant upon notice to the plaintiff and an opportunity to show "good cause" why the complaint was not timely served. The notice requirement is satisfied if the plaintiff files a motion for reconsideration of dismissal and is allowed an opportunity to demonstrate "good cause" at that point. Whale v. United States, 792 F.2d 951, 952 (9th Cir. 1986). In response to Kile's motion for reconsideration, the district judge issued an order which rejected the plaintiff's arguments that any defect in service of process had been waived.² 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the international union sua sponte for lack of service of process five years after filing the complaint. We affirm the dismissal order and the denial of reconsideration. Appeal No. 89-15069.

After filing his appeal of the district court's summary judgment order, the plaintiff decided that the order was not a final, appealable order since the international union had not yet been dismissed. However, a judgment will be treated as final for jurisdictional purposes, even if not final at the time the appeal was taken, if all remaining claims have since been adjudicated. Baker v. Limber, 647 F.2d 912, 916 (9th Cir. 1981). Thus, this court has jurisdiction over the summary judgment appeal.

Apparently believing the summary judgment order regarding the two local unions was not appealable, the plaintiff did not present any arguments in his briefs why the summary judgment was erroneous. In Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337 (1988), we held that " [i]t is well established in this Circuit that claims which are not addressed in the appellant's brief are deemed abandoned." Id. at 339. Accordingly, we hold the plaintiff has waived his appeal in No. 88-15085 of the summary judgment order in favor of Local 1147 and Carpenters 46 Northern Counties Conference Board.

The appeals in No. 88-15085 and No. 89-15069 are AFFIRMED.