Landschoot

MEMORANDUM *

Landschoot appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California (Trust Fund). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (e). We have jurisdiction of this timely fried appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo. Estate of Shockley v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 130 F.3d 403 , 405 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

Landschoot asserts that the district court should have reviewed the decision of the Board of Trustees for the Trust Fund (Board) to suspend his benefits de novo. “We review de novo a contention that the district court did not apply the proper standard of review.” McDaniel v. Chevron Corp., 203 F.3d 1099, 1107 (9th Cir. 2000). Landsehoot’s argument rests solely on the fact that one of the trustees required by the Trust Fund’s pension plan (Plan) to be present at Landschoot’s hearing was absent. Landschoot was, however, advised at the hearing of the absence, and Landschoot’s attorney stated that he had no objection. Thus, Landschoot waived his ability to contest the absence. We will therefore apply the same standard-abuse of discretion — used by…