559, 567 (9th Cir.1980). In short, “[i]t would certainly be anomalous if the same good reasons that presumably led Congress ... to require covered plans to provide administrative remedies for aggrieved claimants did not lead the court to see that those remedies are regularly used.” Denton, 765 F.2d at 1301. Although he acknowledges each of these concerns, Siegel contends that the exhaustion requirement is inapplicable to his case. He asserts that he is not subject to the Plan’s administrative procedures because his benefits claim actually arises under the Excess Plan, a top-hat plan which does not provide for administrative review. See Siegel Dkt. 36 at 15; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(1) (excepting top hat plans from scope of coverage of ERISA’s fiduciary provisions); § 1102(a)(1) (<HOLDING>); Garratt v. Knowles, 245 F.3d 941, 948 n. 6
recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator holding that actions based on breach of fiduciary duty must inure to the benefit of the plan as a whole holding a plan administrator is a fiduciary under the disposition clause where it wrongfully disbursed the plans funds recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard holding that one who is named in documents as plan administrator signs documents as plan administrator and assumes discretionary authority in the administration of the pension plan is a fiduciary