CHRISTOPHER SERAFIN V. WILLIAM C. EARHART CO., No. 20-35147 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER SERAFIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35147 D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00192-YY MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM C. EARHART COMPANY INC.; CASCADE GENERAL, INC.; LABORER’S LOCAL UNION 296; OREGON LABORERS’-EMPLOYERS PENSION PLAN TRUST, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Youlee Yim You, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 12, 2022*** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Christopher Serafin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision whether to apply equitable tolling or equitable estoppel. Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that equitable tolling and equitable estoppel did not apply to the applicable statutes of limitations barring Serafin’s action. See Doe v. Garland, 17 F.4th 941, 946 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[E]quitable tolling applies only if a litigant (1) has been diligently pursuing his rights, and (2) failed to timely file because some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lukovsky v. City & County of San Francisco, 535 F.3d 1044, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[E]quitable estoppel doctrine requires showing of fraudulent concealment or conduct above and beyond the wrongdoing upon which the plaintiff’s claim is filed, to prevent the plaintiff from suing in time.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the briefing on appeal, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not 2 20-35147 manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim.”); see also Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 20-35147

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.