N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
DOM INIC K B R

U N O, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. THE TIM E W AR

NER PENSION PLAN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-57000 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-04374-R -VB K M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M an ua l R e a l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

6, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : Pre ge rson a

nd Fishe r, C irc uit Judge s, a nd Gwin, Distric t Judge
. ** Pla intiff-Appe lla

n t Dom inic k B runo a sks this c o urt to re ve rse the distric t
c ourt’ s judgm e nt dism i ssing his pe nsion-re la te d c la i m s a s untim e ly . W e AFFIR M
. 

# FIL ED
JUL 26 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble Ja m e s S. Gwin, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa t ion.1. Appe lle e The Tim e W arne r Pe nsion Pla n (the TW P Plan) argue s for the first tim e on a

ppe a l tha t we should a

p ply the sta tute of re pose found in 29 U.S.C . § 1113. The a

ppropria te tim e lim it pre se nts a

pure que s tion of la

w, a nd m e aningful
re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt re quire s us to de c ide what tim e lim i t a pplie s he re . W e the re fore e xe rc ise our disc re tion to c onside r the TW P Plan’ s a rgum e nt
e ve n though it wa s not ra ise d be low. Se e Mac Donald v . Grac e C

hurc h Se attle , 457 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th C ir. 2006). 2. Se c tion 1113 provide s the sta tute s of lim ita

tions a nd re pose for a c tions

“ with re spe c t to a

fiduc ia ry ’ s bre a c h of a

ny re sponsibility , duty , or obliga tion unde r this pa

rt, or with re spe c t to a

viola tion of this pa

rt.” The “ pa

rt” re fe rs to ER ISA Part 4, whic h de sc ribe s fiduc ia ry obliga tions. Unde r Mathe w

s v . C he v ron C orp. , 362 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th C ir. 2004), “ [t] o e sta blish a n a c t ion for e quita

ble
re lie f unde r ER ISA se c tion 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a )(3), the de fe nda nt m ust be an ER ISA fiduc ia

ry a c t ing in its fiduc ia

ry c a pa c ity and m ust viola t e ER ISA-im

p ose d fiduc ia

ry obliga tions.” Id. (c ita

tions a nd a lte ra tions omitte d). B runo se e ks e quita

ble re l ie f unde r 29 U.S.C . § 1132(a )(3) so, unde r Mathe w s , his

2c a se m

ust involve

a fiduc ia ry ’ s bre a c h of a fiduc ia

ry obliga t ion. W e the re fore
a pply the tim e lim its found in 29 U.S.C . § 1113. 1 3. Se c tion 1113 c o nta i ns sta tute s of lim ita

tions a nd re p ose . The re pose pe riod re quire s a

n a c tion be file d within six y e ars of “ (A) the da te of the la st a c tion whic h c onstitute d a

pa rt of the bre a c h or viola

tion, or (B ) in the c a se of a n
om i ssion thelate st da

te on whic h the fiduc ia

ry c ould ha

ve c ure d the bre a c h or viola tion.” 29 U.S.C
. § 1113(1). He re , the a lle ge d bre a c h oc c urre d in 1991, whe n B runo re c e ive d

a s um m ary pla n de sc ription (SPD) tha

t fa ile d to disc lose an

“ offse t” provision, a

nd wa s c ure d in 1996, whe n he re c e ive d a ne w SPD disc losing the p rovision. The

six y e ar statute of re pose the re fore e x pire d , a t the late st, in 2002, a lm ost a

de c a de be fore B runo’ s 2011 la wsuit. 2 AFFIRM E D
.

1 B runo argue s that Mathe w s wa s wrongly de c ide d and c onflic ts with the Supre m e C ourt’ s e arlie r de c ision in H arris Trust & S

a vi n g s Bank v . Salomon Smith Barne y , Inc
. , 530 U.S. 238 (2000). W e e xpre ss no opinion on the m e rits of the se argum e n ts. Mathe w s wa s de c ide d a fte r Harris , and we are bound by c irc uit p re c e de nt. S e e Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C i r. 2003).

2 Appe lla nt’ s M otion to Strike the Supple m e nta l Exc e rpts of R e c ords and the C ounte r Sta t e m e nt of Fa c ts, EC F No. 19, is de nie d a s m o ot. 3