Golden

MEMORANDUM **

Andreda Golden appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to state a claim her action seeking benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 , et seq. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Paulsen v. CNF Inc., 559 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action with prejudice as to defendant Hubbell Inc. because it is not a proper defendant under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (d)(1). See Madden v. ITT Long Term Disability Plan for Salaried Employees, 914 F.2d 1279, 1287 (9th Cir.1990) *228 (dismissing action against employer because ERISA permits suits to recover benefits only against an employee benefit plan).

The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice as to defendant Hubbell Incorporated Retirement Plan for Collectively Bargained Hourly Employees because Golden never submitted an application for benefits and therefore failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Diaz v. United Agric. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478 , 1483 (9th Cir.1995) (requiring exhaustion in suits brought under ERISA). Even…