IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

RONNIE DOOLEY, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 03:12-cv-01207-PK 

 

 v. 

 

RONALD SAXTON, RODERICK C. ORDER 

WENDT, R. NEIL STUART, and 

JELD-WEN EMPLOYEE STOCK 

OWNERSHIP & RETIREMENT PLAN, 

 

 Defendants. 

 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge: 

 Magistrate Judge Papak issued a Findings and Recommendation [#55] on December 12, 

2012, in which he recommends that the Court (1) deny defendants’ motion to stay pending 

plaintiff’s exhaustion of administrative remedies, and (2) grant plaintiff’s motion to compel 

discovery. 

Case 1:12-cv-01207-MC Document 76 Filed 03/08/13 Page 1 of 3
 Defendants timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is 

now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). 

 When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the 

Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th 

Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

 I have carefully considered defendants’ objections and conclude that the objections do 

not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the 

pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 

Recommendation. 

 Plaintiff claims that defendants violated ERISA section 204(g) in two ways. First, 

plaintiff claims that defendants reduced plaintiff’s vested account by changing the valuation 

method from one based on cash with a fixed interest rate to one that depends upon stock values 

with no guaranteed interest. Second, plaintiff claims that the November amendments eliminated 

approximately 10 months of earned interest. 

 “Exhaustion of internal dispute procedures is not required where the issue is whether a 

violation of the terms or provisions of the statute [ERISA] has occurred.” Fujikawa v. Gushiken, 

823 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1987). Under ERISA 204(g), the “anti-cutback” rule, a 

participant’s accrued benefit may not be decreased by plan amendment. Plaintiff’s claim alleges 

a direct violation of a provision of ERISA, and therefore, administrative exhaustion is not 

required. 

 Plaintiff also brings three counts alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties. 

Breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA are not required to undergo administrative 

Case 1:12-cv-01207-MC Document 76 Filed 03/08/13 Page 2 of 3
exhaustion before proceeding in court. Horan v. Kaiser Steel Ret. Plan, 947 F.2d 1412, 1416 n.1 

(9th Cir. 1991), overruled on other grounds by Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 

642 F. 3d 666 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, the outcome of the fiduciary duty claims depends on the 

findings from the anti-cutback claim. 

 I adopt Judge Papak’s conclusions regarding the motion to stay and the motion to 

compel. 

CONCLUSION 

 The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation [#55] and, 

therefore, plaintiff’s motion to compel [#39] is granted and defendants’ motion to stay [#43] is 

denied. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 DATED this day of , 2013. 

 

 

 MARCO A. HERNANDEZ 

 United States District Judge

Case 1:12-cv-01207-MC Document 76 Filed 03/08/13 Page 3 of 3