benefits for the plan may n not adequately pursue relief on behalf of the ESOP. LaSalle also argues that plaintiff cannot alternatively plead so as to state claims for both damages arising from a breach of fiduciary duty and for denial of benefits. As stated above, plaintiff concedes that any claim for denial of benefits against LaSalle must be dismissed. LaSalle argues that count I should be dis missed anyway, so as to discourage artful pleading. The cases defendant relies on, however, stand only for the proposition that a plaintiff may not use a claim for breach of fiduciary duty to get around the ERISA statute if it is not otherwise eligible to file a claim for denial of benefits. See Coyne & Delany Co. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Virginia, Inc., 102 F.3d 712 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Here, because plaintiffs are beneficiaries of
holding plaintiff may sue federal agents for money damages for violation of his constitutional rights holding that plaintiffs do not lose their right to sue for damages sustained within statute of limitations period by failing to sue on earlier incidents in timely manner holding that fiduciaries may not sue for benefits simply by using section 502a2 holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that employers have standing to sue