
    BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NORTHWEST METAL CRAFTS TRUST FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SWEED MACHINERY INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-35947.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 9, 2015.
    Filed July 21, 2015.
    Noelle E. Dwarzski, McKenzie Rothwell Barlow and Coughran, P.S., Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Phil Jon Nelson, Principal Litigation Counsel, Darían A. Stanford, Slinde Nelson Stanford, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: NGUYEN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges and ZOUHARY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Jack Zouhary, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sweed Machinery Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Northwest Metal Crafts Trust Fund. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Nw. Adm’rs, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 255 (9th Cir.1996), we affirm. ■

Assuming, without deciding, that the 2007 collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) is ambiguous, we agree with the district court that extrinsic evidence establishes that Sweed was required to make contributions to the Trust Fund in the month following an employee’s termination, transfer to a non-union position, or opt-out. See Ariz. Laborers v. Conquer Cartage Co., 753 F.2d 1512, 1518 n. 9 (9th Cir.1985). The Board’s uncontradicted evidence of industry practice regarding the reporting of employees’ hours to the Trust Fund, coupled with evidence that eligibility for benefits depends on the hours worked by an employee in previous months, supports the district court’s conclusion that the Board’s interpretation of the CBA is the only one that is consistent with the intent of the parties. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Board. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     