F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT July 31, 20 08 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1436 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00197 -CV -O DE -1 RAYMOND A. LANFEAR, TERRY CLARK, RANDALL W . CLARK, Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us HOME DEPOT, INC., ROBERT L. NARDELLI, JOHN I. CLENDENIN, MILLEDGE A. H ART, III, KENNET H G. LA

NGONE, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es , LARRY M. MERC ER, et a l., Defen da nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 31 , 200 8)Honora ble Ing e P. J ohnson, United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation. 2 Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, PRYOR, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, an d J OHNSON, * District Judge. PRY OR, Circuit Judge: This appeal presents an issue of first im pression in this circuit: whether a com plaint for breach of f

iduciary duty regar ding the dim inuti on of value of a defined contributi on retirem ent plan states a claim for benef its und er the E m

ploy ee Re tir em en t I nc om e Se curi ty A ct of 197 4, 29 U . S. C. §§ 1 001– 1461 . T he pla int if fs , fo rm er e m plo y ee s of

T he H om e D ep ot, I nc . , f ile d ac om

pla int a ga ins t H om e D ep ot an d it s of fi ci al s f or br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty in the a dm ini str at ionof

ar et ir em en t plan. T he form er e m

ploy ees have re ceived their benefit pay m ents, but they com plain that th e paym ents wer e less than they shoul d have been. T he district co urt di sm iss ed

the c om pla int w ithpr ej udi ce f

or la ck of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n on the grou nd that th e com plaint was for dam ages, not benefits, and the form er em ploy ees did not qu alify

as “participants” entitled to s ue for bre ach of fiduciary duty . The district court concluded alternatively that the form er e m

ploy ees had fa ile d to e xhaust

the ir a va ila ble a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, but the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not decide whether it should d ism iss the com plaint withou t prej udice on that3

gr ound or stay the a ct ionto al lowthe f

orm er e m plo y ee s to pur sue the ir adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. W e dis ag re e w ithsom e of w ha t the dis tr ic t c ourt de ci de d and a gr ee w ith oth er a spe ct s of

it s r uli ng, but w e ar e una

ble to re sol ve a ll of

the iss ue s inthi s ap pe al . W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it tr eate d th e thr es hol d issue as one of sub

j ect-m atter j urisdictio n and when it dism issed the form er em plo y ee s’ c om

pla int w ithpr ej udi ce . W e co nc lud e that a c om pla int f or br ea chof fiduciary duty that seeks restitution of the dim inish ed value of a def ined contributi on plan is for benef its, not dam ages. Although we agree with the district co ur t t ha t t he for m er em

pl oyees fa il edto ex ha us t t he ir a dm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, we rem and this m atter f

or the district court to determ ine, in the fir st instan ce, whether to d ism iss the c om

pla int w ith out pr ej udi ce or

stay the li tig at ionto al lowthe fo rm er e m plo y ee s to pur sue the ir

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. W e re ve rs e in p ar t, affi rm in pa rt, a nd rem an d. I. BACKG ROUND Hom e D epot offers its em ploy ees a r etirem ent plan in which assets are a l l o c a t e dt o t h e a c c o u n to f e a c h p a rt i c i p a n t . T h e b o a r do f d i r e c t o r s o f

H o me De pot appo ints bo th the inv estm ent com m ittee and the adm inistrative comm ittee fo r the plan. T he inv es tm en t c om m itt ee m ak es de ci sio ns r eg ar din g th e inv es tm en t4

of plan a sse ts, a nd the a dm ini str at ive c om m itt ee is re spon sib le f

or the adm ini str at ionof

the plan, inc lud ing c la im s de te rm inatio ns. The pl an pro vi de s d efi ne d c on tri bu ti on s i ns te adof d efi ne d b en efi ts . Ina plan f or de fi ne d be ne fi ts, af

orm ula is use d to c om

put e the be ne fi ts o w ed

to the participant. S ee H ughes Aircra ft Co. v. Jac obso n, 525 U. S. 432, 439– 40, 119 S. Ct . 755 , 761 ( 1999 ). T he a m ount of be ne fi ts t o w hic h a

part ic ipant i s e nti tle d is not affecte d by

the value of the plan assets. S ee id. In a plan for defined co ntr ibu tio ns, a

f orm ula de te rm ine s th e am ount

that the e m

plo y er is re qui re d to contribute, but no form

ula is used to determ ine the am ount of benefits. See id. at 439, 119 S . Ct . a t 76 1. T he part ic ipant i s e nti tle d to the va lue of the a sse ts i n hi s account, w hatever that value m ay be. See id. The f orm er e m ploy ees com

plained that Hom e D epot vio lated its fiduciary duty by a llo w ing the plan to inv es t i n H om e D ep ot s toc k e ve n th oughc or por at e officials w ere backdating s tock opt ions and m aking fraudulent transaction s, w hich artificially

inflated the value of H om e D epot stock. The c om plaint nam ed as defendants Hom e D epot, curr ent and form er m em bers of the investm ent com m ittee an d th e adm ini str at ive c om m itt ee of the plan, a nd c ur

re nt and f orm er m em be rs of the board of directors of H om e D epot. In their r equest for relief , the f orm er em ploy ees sought to com

pel the defendants to restore to the plan all loss es that5

re sul te d f ro m abr ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty , a ll pr of

its that a br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty prevented the plan from

rea lizing, and all profits m ade through th e m isuse of plan as se ts . T he y

r eque ste d th at

the c ourt a llo cate to the ir ind ivi dua l a cc ount s a pr opor tio na te a m ount

of the r es tit uti on o f plan lo sse s. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s f ile d th ei r co m

pla int on b eh al f of

a ll plan part ic ipants for the period on and after June 30, 2001. T he com plaint was filed in the E astern D istri ct of N ewY ork, but

the a ct ionw as tr an sf

er re d to the N orthe rnD istri ct of Ge orgia. N one of the form er e m ploy ees pursued adm inistrative rem edies before fi lin g th e co m

pla int . Hom e D epot m oved to d ism iss the com plaint on the ground s that the form er em plo y ee s di d no t qu al if

y a s part ic ipants of

the plan un de r E RI SA , f ai le d to exhaust their adm inistrative rem edies, and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. T he district court dism issed the com plaint with prej udice under Fe de ra l R ule of Ci vil P ro ce dur e 12( b) (1 ) fo r la ck of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n be cau se th e p la in ti ffs di d n ot qu al ify as p art ic ip an ts of t he pl an , 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)( 2), and, as a r esult, lacked statutory standing to sue for breac h of fiduciary duty , 29 U . S. C. § 11 09. A lte rn at ive ly , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that, und er

Ru le 12(b)(6), the form er e m

ploy ees’ failure to exhaust their adm inistrative rem edies6

pr ec lud ed r el ie f. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ine d to c onsi de r w he the r to s tay the lit igatio n to a llo wthe f

orm er e m plo y ee s to pur sue the ir

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. II. ST AN DA RD S OF RE VIEW W e rev ie w de n ov o a di sm is sa l fo r la ckof s ub ject- m at te r juri sd ic ti on . E le nd v . Ba sham , 471 F . 3d 1 199, 120 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) . W e re vie wde nov o whether form er e m

ploy ees qualify

as participants of a plan under E RISA . See United States v. Ha

un, 494 F.3d 1006 , 1008 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. S earc y , 418 F . 3d 1 193, 119 5 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ). Whe the r the r equir em en t of exhaustio n of adm inistrative rem edies applies to a claim is a question of lawthat w e re vie wde nov o. S ee Ma son v. Co nt’ l G ro up, I nc . , 763 F . 2d 1 219, 122 4–27 (11th Cir. 1985). W e re view f or a cle ar a

buse of discretion th e decision whether to ex cu se th e fai lu re t o e xh au st ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s. Perrin o v . S. Bel l Tel . & Te l. C o., 209 F.3d 1309 , 1315 (11th Cir. 2000). III. D ISCU SSION The f orm er e m ploy ees m ake two argum ents on app eal. First, the form er em plo y ee s arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it c onc lud ed

that the y did not qu al ify as p art ic ip an ts an d l ack edst an di ng to su e fo r br each of f id uc ia ry du ty. Se co nd, the f

orm er e m plo y ee s arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed w he n it de te rm ine d th at

the pla int if

fs w er e re qui re d to e xhaust the ir a dm ini str at ive7

rem edies and clearly

abused its di scretion when it declined to excuse their failure to exhaust adm inistrative rem edies. W e discuss each argum ent in turn and th en dis cu ss the dis posi tio n of thi s a ppe al . A . T he F orm er E m plo ye es A re P art ic ipa nts of the P lan Entitled To Sue for Breach

of Fiduciary Duty. Ourdi sc us si on ab ou t t he st an di ng of t he for m er em pl oyees i s d iv id edin two part s. F ir st, w e dis cu ss whe the r the status of the f orm er e m plo y ee s a s part ic ipants im pli cate s th e subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt or

is a que sti on a

bout the m erits of the ac tion. Sec ond, we discuss whether the form er e m ploy ees qualify as participants und er E RISA . The latter issue turns on whether the form er em plo y ee s a sse rt

ac la im f or be ne fi ts o r da m ag es . T he dis tr ic t c ourt e rr one ousl y dis m iss ed

the f orm er e m plo y ee s’ c om

pla int fo r la ck of sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. Whe n apla int if f m ak es apla

usi ble argum ent that a feder al statute creates his right to relief , the district court has subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er that c om pla int . I n B lue Cr oss & Bl ue S hie ld o f A la ba m a v. S an de rs , w e ex pla ine d th at w he the r the pla int if

f qua lif ie d a s a fiduciary entitled to bring an action under section 11 32(a)(3) of ER ISAinvol ved the m er its of

the c as e, not

sub j ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n, be ca use the a rg um en t of

the pla int if f in f av or of f idu ci ar y status w as pla

usi ble . 138 F . 3d 1 347, 135 1–53 &8

nn. 4 & 5 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) . W e re lie d onBe ll v. H ood, 327 U . S. 678 , 66 S . Ct . 773 (1 946) , f or the pr opos iti on tha t “ a fe de ra l c ourt m ay dis m iss af

ed er al que sti on claim for lac k of subject- m atter j urisdictio n onlyif: (1) ‘ the alleged claim under the Co nst itu tio n or

f ed er al statut es c le ar ly

appe ar s to be im

m at er ia l and m ad e sol el y f or the pur pose of obt ai nin g j ur isd ic tio n’ ; or ( 2) ‘ suc h ac la im

is w hol ly insub stantial and frivolo us.’ ” Sanders, 138 F. 3d at 135 2 (quotin g Bell, 327 U. S. at 682– 83, 66 S. Ct. at 776). O ur de ci sio n inS an de rs c ontro ls h er e. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s pl au sib ly arg ue th atth ey

are p art ic ip an ts en ti tl edto su e fo r br each of f id uc ia ry du ty. Be ca use the f orm er e m plo y ee s’ a rg um en t f

or part ic ipant s ta tus is pla

usi ble , the district court had sub

j ect-m atter j urisdictio n. Whether the form er e m ploy ees qualify as participants invo lves the m erits of the appeal. T he district court erre d w he n it c onc lud ed

that i t l ac ke d su

bj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n ov er thi s c om pla int . The f orm er e m ploy ees ar gue that they

qualify as participants because, under ERISA, th ei r co m

pl ai nt ass ert s a c la im

forbe ne fit s i ns te adof d am ag es . W e ag ree. A part ic ipant o r be ne fi ci ar y of aplan m ay

br ing ac ivi l a ct ionf

or br ea chof fid uc ia ry du ty in t he ad m in is tra ti on of t he pl an . 29 U.S.C. §§ 11 09 , 11 32 (a)( 2) . Beca use the form er e m

ploy ees do not argue that they qualify as beneficiar ies, they9

m ay sue f or br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty onl y if the y qua lif y a s part ic ipants of

the plan. T he A ct

de fi ne s th e te rm

“ part ic ipant” w ithr ef

er en ce to en tit le m en t t o be ne fi ts: The te rm “ participant” m eans any

em ploy ee or f

orm er e m ploy ee of an em ploy er, or any

m em ber or f orm er m em

ber of an e m

ploy ee or ganiz at ion , w ho i s or

m ay be co m e el igi ble to re ce ive abe ne fi t of an y ty pe f ro m a n e m plo y ee be ne fi t pl anw hic h c ove rs e m plo y ee s of suc h e m plo y er or m em be rs of suc h or ganiz at ion , or

w hose be ne fi ci ar ie s m ay

be e lig ibl e to r ec ei ve a ny suc h be ne fi t. 29 U. S. C. § 100 2(7). The Suprem e Court has explained that “ the term

‘ participant’ is naturally

rea d to m ean either ‘ em

ploy ees in, or reasonably expected to be in , curren tl y

co ve redem

pl oym en t’ or fo rm er em

pl oyees wh o ‘ha ve . . . a re as o n ab l e e x p ec t at i o n o f r et u rn i n g t o co v er ed empl o ym en t ’ orwh o h av e ‘a co lor ab le c la im ’ to ve ste d be ne fi ts. ” F ir es ton e T ir e & R ubbe r Co . v. Br

uc h, 489 U . S. 101 , 117 , 109 S . Ct . 948 , 958 ( 1989 ) (c itatio ns o m itt ed ) (o m iss ionin original). The f orm er e m ploy ees ar gue that they

qualify as participants because they ha ve ac olo ra

ble c la im to ve ste d be ne fi ts. Whe the r the pla int if fs ha ve ac olo ra

ble cl ai m to ve st edbe ne fit s d ep en ds on th e d is ti nc ti on be twee n b en efi ts an d d am ag es . E RI SAa llo w s th e re co ve ry of be ne fi ts, but

it doe s no t a llo wsui ts f

or10

ex tr ac ontra ct

ua l dam ag es . Ma ss. Mu t. L if e In s. Co . v. Ru sse ll, 473 U . S. 134 , 146– 48, 105 S. C t. 3085, 3092– 93 (1985 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that the f orm er e m plo y ee s a sse rt ed

ac la im f or da m ag es , not

be ne fi ts, a nd d id n ot qua lif y a s part ic ipants ba se d onthe de ci sio n of the F if th C ir cu it in S om

m er s D ru g S tor es Co . E m plo y ee P ro fi t S hari ng T ru st v . Corrigan, 883 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1989 ). T he Som m ers court stated that “ a plaintiff al le gin g th at

his be ne fi ts w er e w ro ngl y c om put ed ha s ac la im

f or ve ste d be ne fi ts” but that “ a pla int if

f w ho s ee ks the r ec ove ry

f or the tr ust of a n un as ce rt ai nable am ount , w ithno d em onstratio n th at the r ec ove ry

w ill dir ec tly

e ff ec t paym en t t o him , w ouldstate a c laim

for dam ages.” Id. at 350. T he district court reasoned that the f orm er e m plo y ee s so ught

da m ag es be ca

use the ir c om pla int did not se ek a re ad ily a sc er ta ina ble a m ount

that w oul d di re ct ly

e ff ec t a paym en t t o th e pla int if

fs . T he T hir d, S ixth, a nd S ev en th C ir cu its ha ve r ej ec te d th e re as oni ng o f the Fi fth C ir cu it. I n H ar ze w ski v. G uid an t C or p. , Jud ge P osne r ex pla ine d th at nothin g in E RI SAsug ge sts that the te rm “ be ne fi ts” e nc om

pa sse s on ly

c la im s f or a n e as ily ascerta inable am ount . 489 F.3d 799 , 807 (7th Cir. 2007 ). Judge Posner instead co nc lu de d t ha t “ [t]he be ne fit in a de fin ed -co nt rib ut io n p en si on pl an is . . . whatever is in the retirem ent account when the em ploy ee r etires or whatever would have been there had the plan hono red the em ploy ee’ s entitlem ent, which11

inc lud es a n e nti tle m en t t o pr ude nt m an ag em en t. ” I d. a t 80 4–05 . I n G ra de n v. Conexant Sy stem s Inc. , the T hird Circuit followed H arze wski and held that an em ploy ee qualifies as a participant when he sues for a decre ase in the value of a de fi ne d c ontri but iona cc ount c au se d by

avio la tio n of

af idu ci ar y duty . 496 F . 3d 291, 296– 98 (3d Cir. 2007). The G raden court explained that, for a defined contributi on plan, “ ER ISAim poses fiduciary

duties on plan adm inistrators, so part of apart ic ipant’ s e nti tle m en t i s th e va lue of his a cc ount

une nc um be re d by a ny fiduciary im propriety .” Id. at 297 (citation om itted). I n Bridges v. A m erican E le ctri c Po w er

Co . , the S ixth C ir cu it re lie d onH ar ze w ski a nd G ra de n and h el d that a f orm er e m plo y ee c oul d su e to r ec ove r the de cr ea se in va lue of his a cc ount

in a de fi ne d c ontri but ionplan c au se d by abr ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty . 498 F . 3d 4 42, 445 & n.2 (6th Cir. 2007 ). W e ag re e w iththe T hir d, S ixth, a nd S ev en th C ir cu its . Ac om pla int f or the decrea se in value of a defined contribution account due to a breach of f iduciary duty is not f or da m ag es be ca

use it is lim ite d to the dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n th e be ne fi ts actually rec eived and the benefits that would have been received if the plan m an ag em en t ha d f

ulf ill ed it s st at uto ry obl igatio ns. B ec au se the ir c om pla int is fo r benefits, not dam ages, the f orm er e m ploy ees qualify

as participants. T he district co urt e rr ed

w he n it c onc lud ed

that the f orm er e m plo y ee s w er e not

part ic ipants .12

B. The F ormer E mployees W

ere R equired To Exhaust Their Administrative R em ed ies. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at the f orm er e m plo y ee s w er e re qui re d to ex haust the ir a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, a nd the c ourt c hose not to ex er ci se it s discretion to excus e their fa ilure to exhaust adm inistrative rem edies. T he form er em plo y ee s pr es en t thr ee a rg um en ts a ga ins t the de ci sio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt: (1 ) the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

w he n it appl ie d th e pr ec ed en t of

the E le ve nthCi rc uit ins te ad of the S ec ond Ci rc uit , w he re the a ct ionw as or igi na lly f ile d; ( 2) E le ve nth Ci rc uit pr ec ed en t do es not

r equir e ex haust ionof

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s w he n th e co m pla int is fo r br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty , ins te ad

of ade nia l of

be ne fi ts, a nd i t se ek s r el ie f on b eh al f of

the e nti re plan; and ( 3) the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly abuse d it s dis cr et ionw he n it

de cl ine d to e xc use the f

orm er e m plo y ee s’ f

ai lur e to e xhaust the ir a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. E ac h of the se a rg um en ts f

ai ls. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s e rr one ousl y

a rg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have ap pli ed S ec ond Ci rc uit

pr ec ed en t i nst ea d of

E le ve nthCi rc uit

pr ec ed en t a ft er

the case w as transfer

red to the Norther

n District of G eorgia fr om the Ea stern District of N ewY ork. T he f

orm er e m plo y ee s c ite V anD use n v. Barr ac k, 376 U . S. 612 , 84 S. Ct . 80 5 (1 96 4) , forth e p ro po si ti on th at , aft er a t ran sf er o f ve nu e, 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), the transfer ee court m ust applythe lawof the transfer or court, but that13

decision held that, in a diversity case, the transfer ee court m ust applythe state law that w oul d have be enappl ie d inthe tr an sf er or c ourt. Murp hy

v. F D IC , 208 F . 3d 959, 965 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . Atr an sf er ee c ourt i s no t r equir ed to ap ply the lawof the transferor court when, as here, the transfer ee court interpre ts federa l law. Id. at 964.

“ T he lawis cl ear in this c ir cu it that pl ai nti ff s inE RI SAa ct ion s m

ust exhaust available adm inistrative rem edies before suing in federal court. ” Bickley v. Care m ar

k R X , I nc . , 461 F . 3d 1 325, 132 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( quot ing Co unt s v. Am . G en. L ife & A ccident Ins. C o., 111 F.3d 105, 108 (11t h Cir. 1997 )) ( internal quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). “ T h[ e] e xhaust ionr equir em en t a ppl ie s e qua lly

to cl ai m s f or be ne fi ts and c la im s f

or vio la tio ns o f E RI SAit se lf . ” I d. ( ci tin g P er

ri no, 209 F. 3d a t 13 16 n . 6) . I n B ic kle y , w e ap pli ed the e xhaust ionr equir em en t t o a cl ai m f or br ea chof

f idu ci ar y duty in the a dm ini str at ionof

aplan go ve rn ed

by E RI SAw he n th e cl ai m

sou ght r el ie f on b eh al f of

the plan. I d. a t 13 27, 133 0. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s a tte m

pt t o di sti ngui sh B ic kle y

on the gr ound

that the b r e a c h o f f i du c i a ry du t y i n B i c k l e y, u n l i k e i n t h i s ap p e a l , wa s c o mm i t t e db y a thi rd -p ar ty a dm ini str at or

of the plan, but

our de ci sio n inBi ck le y

did not r es t on thi s di sti nc tio n. T he e xhaust ionr equir em en t a ppl ie s to c om

pla int s f or br ea chof14

f i du c i a ry du t y u n d e r

ER I S A r e g a r d l e s s o f

wh e th e r t h e b r e a c h wa s c o mm i t t e db y a third-party

adm inistrator of the plan or the em ploy er. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s arg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt c le ar ly abuse d it s dis cr et ionw he n it

de cl ine d to e xc use the ir

f ai lur e to e xhaust

a dm ini str at ive rem edies because the plan did no t provide an adm inistrative rem edy . “ [D ] istrict co urts h av e dis cr et ionto ex cu se the e xhaust ionr equir em en t w he n r es ort t o adm ini str at ive r em ed ie s w oul d be f uti le or the r em edy

ina de qua te . ” Co unt s, 111 F. 3d a t 10 8 ( ci tin g C ur

ry v. Co ntr ac t F ab ri cator s, I nc . P ro fi t S hari ng P lan, 891 F. 2d 84 2, 846 (11th Cir. 1990), a brogated on o ther grounds by Murphy v. Re liance Standard L ife Ins. Co., 247 F.3d 1313 , 1315 (11th Cir. 2001)). The form er em ploy ees contend that the provi sion in the plan regarding initial review of a cl ai m r ef er s on ly to “ [c ] la im s f

or be ne fi ts” a nd the pr ovi sio n r eg ar din g a ppe al s refe rs only

to participants and beneficiaries w ho have been “ denied a benefit.” T he y m ai nta in tha t the ir

c om pla int is fo r da m ag es ins te ad

of be ne fi ts. T his a rg um en t f

ai ls f or tw o r ea sons . F ir st, a s w e ex pla ine d inthe pr ev iou s section, the form er e m

ploy ees’ com

plaint is for benefits. Se cond, the plan pr ovi de s an a dm ini str at ive r em edy f or aw ide r an ge of

c la im s, inc lud ing br ea chof f i du c i a ry du t y:15 (a) Rights. If

a Participant or Benefic iary has any grievance, co m pla int or c la im c onc er nin g any a spe ct of the ope ratio n or adm ini str at ionof

the P lan or

T ru st, inc lud ing but

not li m ite d to claim s for benefits and com plaints con cerning the investm ents of Plan as se ts . . . , the P ar

tic ipant o r Be ne fi ci ar

y sha ll subm it the c la im wit hi n t he “ ap pl ic ab le li m it at io ns pe rio d.” T he plan gr an ts i ts a dm ini str at or s “ co m ple te c ontro l of

the a dm ini str at ionof

the Pl an. . . , w itha ll dis cr et ion ar y auth or ity a nd p ow er s ne ce ssary

to en ab le it pr ope rl y to carr y out it s du tie s, ” inc lud ing the duty “ to c onstru e the P lan and t o determ ine all question s that shall arise thereunder. ” In B ickley , w e concluded that a sim ilar gr an t of

dis cr et ion ar

y auth or ity w as suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh the a va ila

bil ity of a n a dm ini str at ive r em edy . 461 F . 3d a t 13 29–3 0. T he f orm er e m plo y ee s a lso a rg ue that e xhaust ionof the ir a dm ini str at ive re m ed ie s w oul d have be enf uti le , but w e dis ag re e. T he f

orm er e m plo y ee s a lle ge that the sam e part ie s w ho b re ac he d th ei r fi duc iary duty w oul d have be enthe de ci sio nm ak er s inthe a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din g, but the f uti lity e xc ep tio n pr ote ct s part ic ipants w ho are de nie d m eanin gf ul a cc es s to a dm ini str at ive pr oc ed ur es , not those whose claim s would be heard by an interested party . In Curry , f or exam ple, w e fo und that e xha

ust ionw as f

uti le be ca use plan a dm ini str at or s ha d de nie d a part ic ipant m eanin gf

ul a cc es s to a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din gs b y r ep eate dly16

igno ring requests for docum ents sup porting the denial of benefits. 891 F.2d at 844, 846 –47. O ur de ci sio ns i n B ic kle y

a nd S pr ing er

v. W al -M ar

t A sso ci at es ’ G ro up H ea lthP lan, 908 F . 2d 8 97 ( 11th C ir . 199 0) , a lso e sta bli sh tha t the f

uti lity ex ce pti on i s a

bout m eanin gf

ul a cc es s to a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din gs, not a potenti al conflict of interest of the dec ision m akers. In Bickley , w e re j ected an ar gum en t of

f uti lity a s sp ec ulativ e be ca

use the part ic ipant h ad

not a tte m pte d to pur sue a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. 461 F . 3d a t 13 30. I n S pr ing er , w e ru le d th at a participant m ay

not inv oke the futilityexception to avoi d recourse to an a d mi n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e du r e o n t h e g r o u n dt h a tt h e r e v i e w e r i s “b a s i c a l l y t h e s a me en tity a s th e ini tia l i nte rn al de ci de r an d . . . both de ci de rs ha ve a n in te re st i n

‘ hold ing costs down.’ ” 908 F.2d at 901 (quotin g Springer v. W al-Mar t A sso ci at es ’ G ro up H ea lthP lan, 714 F . S upp. 116 8, 117 6 (N . D . A la . 198 9) , r ev ’ d, 908 F.2d 897 ) (om issio n in origin al) (inter nal quot ation m ark om itted). C. O n R em and, the D istric t C ourt Sho uld R ule on t he F orm er E m plo ye es ’ R eq uest for a St ay. Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed w ithpr ej udi ce on the gr ound that the fo rm er e m plo y ee s la ck ed

standi ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t de te rm ine w he the r it w oul d have stay ed

the pr oc ee din g or

dis m iss ed

w ith out pr ej udi ce ba se d onthe17

form er e m

ploy ees’ failure to exhaust their adm inistrative rem edies. T he form er em plo y ee s r eque ste d astay

a s an a lte rn at ive to a dis m iss al w ith out pr ej udi ce to al lowthe ir

pur sui t of

a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es sly de cl ine d to c onsi de r the r eque st f or astay . W ith out

e xpr es sin g any

opi nio n re gard ing the appr opr ia te ne ss o f a stay in thi s c ont ex t, w e re m an d th is m atte r to t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o r

u l e f i r s to n t h e f

o rmere mp l o ye e s ’ r e qu e s tf o r as t a y. IV. C ONC LUS ION W e REV ERS E th e d is m is sa l wi th pre jud ic e, AFFIRM the f

ind ing that the fo rm er e m plo y ee s have f

ai le d to e xhaust

the ir a dm ini str at ive r em ed ie s, a nd REMAND f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs.