
    Kelly ST. JULIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph ST. JULIAN, an individual, Defendant-cross-claimant-Appellee, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Business Edge Solutions Life Insurance Plans, an Erisa Plan, Cross-defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-55470.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 9, 2012.
    
    Filed April 20, 2012.
    Gail S. Cooper-Folb, Esquire, CooperFolb Law Offices, Glendale, CA, James S. Link, Baraban & Teske, Pasadena, CA, Timothy P. Peabody, Esquire, Timothy P. Peabody Law Offices, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Ronald Dean, Ronald Dean, ALC, Pacific Palisades, CA, for Defendant-crossclaimanh-Appellee.
    Rebecca Ann Hull, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Cross-defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kelly St. Julian appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Joseph St. Julian on her claim seeking to impose a constructive trust over the proceeds of an ERISA covered life insurance policy on the life of John St. Julian. We affirm.

Kelly asserts that because she was John’s surviving, though estranged, spouse, she can claim a community property interest in the proceeds. However, regardless of whether California would determine that Kelly had a community property interest in the policy, this court has clearly held that the preemption provision of ERISA precludes the imposition of a constructive trust upon the proceeds. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1061-62 (9th Cir.2010), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 1492, 179 L.Ed.2d 305 (2011). As we said, “a state law constructive trust cannot be used to contravene the dictates of ERISA.” Id. at 1061. That being so, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Joseph. While Kelly launches a number of attacks on Carmona’s reasoning, we are bound by its holdings. See, e.g., Hart v. Massanari, 266 F.3d 1155, 1171 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1461.
     
      
      . There can be no doubt that Kelly and John were living separately and that Kelly had filed for a dissolution of the marriage.
     
      
      . 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a).
     
      
      . Carmona, 603 F.3d at 1062, did note that, perhaps, a constructive trust could be used "to recover ill-gotten gains.” However, there is no indication that Joseph’s gains were "ill-gotten.”
     