Case Name: John David HAGADORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA FIELD IRONWORKERS TRUST FUNDS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-11
Citations: 549 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 12-55682
Parties: John David HAGADORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA FIELD IRONWORKERS TRUST FUNDS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 549
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
John David HAGADORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA FIELD IRONWORKERS TRUST FUNDS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-55682.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2013.
Filed Dec. 11, 2013.
Morris S. Getzels, Esquire, Morris S. Getzels Law Office, Tarzana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Stephen Michael Macphail, Bragg and Kuluva, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant Appellee.
Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Hagadorn appeals a summary judgment in favor of the California Field Ironworkers Trust Funds (Funds). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. Hagadorn failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies under a pension trust fund governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1001-1461, and did not demonstrate that doing so would have been futile. Hagadorn's allegation that an employee of the Funds forged his disability certifícate is not supported by evidence in the record. And, the numerous communications between Hagadorn and the Funds concerning benefits contradict his claim that it would have been futile for him to file an administrative appeal.
2. Because there was no evidence supporting Hagadorn's fraud claim, the district court did not err in concluding that equitable tolling did not preserve Haga-dorn's untimely claims for benefits. Nor did Hagadorn's asserted forgetfulness, confusion, and anxiety toll the statute of limitations.
3. Hagadorn's argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion is also without merit. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that information about Hagadorn's asserted mental conditions was not newly discovered.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.