Opinion ID: 3012186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is Exhaustion Futile?

Text: Plaintiffs also argue that they are not required to exhaust Plan remedies because it would be futile to do so. A party invoking this exception must provide a clear and positive showing of futility before the District Court. Harrow, 279 F.3d at 249-50. Here, plaintiffs concede that theynever _________________________________________________________________ 7. Bruch does suggest that one part of this inquiry--whether there has been a partial termination--is subject to independent determination by the court. 828 F.2d at 149. But that does not alter the fact that plaintiffs’ ultimate right to vest is based on application of the Plan--a question which should be addressed by the Plan administrator in the first instance. See, e.g., Diaz v. United Agric. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan & Trust, 50 F.3d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) (prospect of judicial review for compliance with federal statutory provisions does not give claimant license to evade internal appeal to plan administrator). 8 presented their partial termination claims to the Plan Administrator either formally or informally. 8 They assert that no attempts to request benefits are required in light of CBS’s longstanding policy of denying that partial termination ever occurred. Our precedent makes clear, however, that Plaintiffs who fail to make known their desire for benefits to a responsible company official are precluded from seeking judicial relief. Berger v. Edgewater Steel Co., 911 F.2d 911, 917 (3d Cir. 1990) (agreeing that futility argument lacked merit where employee never even asked for 70/80 retirement). Thus, we find that the District Court properly exercised its discretion when it declined to apply the futility exception here.