22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4a1,MEMORANDUM 2 Samuel G. Chia appeals pro se the district court’s judgment declining to vacate the National Association of Securities Dealers’ arbitration decision that dismissed as time-barred his claim alleging that Fidelity Brokerage Services defrauded him and breached its fiduciary duty in relation to a bad investment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision confirming an arbitration decision and denying vacatur. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh 933 F.2d 1481 , 1485 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. Because Chia had actual or constructive knowledge of his claim in September 1992, his claim is time-barred. See Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., 649 F.2d 641, 644-45 (9th Cir.1980). Chia’s contentions regarding tolling, that a six-year statute of limitations applies, or that the arbitrators and district court exceeded their power lack merit. We deny Fidelity’s request to strike portions of the record. AFFIRMED. . This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4c1,

MEMORANDUM 2

Samuel G. Chia appeals pro se the district court’s judgment declining to vacate the National Association of Securities Dealers’ arbitration decision that dismissed as time-barred his claim alleging that Fidelity Brokerage Services defrauded him and breached its fiduciary duty in relation to a bad investment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s decision confirming an arbitration decision and denying vacatur. See Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh 933 F.2d 1481 , 1485 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm.

Because Chia had actual or constructive knowledge of his claim in September 1992, his claim is time-barred. See Robuck v. Dean Witter & Co., 649 F.2d 641, 644-45 (9th Cir.1980). Chia’s contentions regarding tolling, that a six-year statute of limitations applies, or that the arbitrators and district court exceeded their power lack merit.

We deny Fidelity’s request to strike portions of the record.

AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.