this court has determined that the Van Nattas’ claims are preempted and subject to removal jurisdiction, the court will now examine the elements of the plaintiffs’ complaints in order to determine if the claims can survive the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant contends that, once recast as an ERISA claim for wrongful denial of benefits, the plaintiffs’ claims require dismissal based on their failure to plead exhaustion of the administrative remedies available under the Plan. The plaintiffs contend they are not required to plead this element in their complaint because it is an issue of fact. Alternatively, the plaintiffs contend they are exempted from this requirement because the defendant failed to provide them with proper notice of the denial of th 768, 770 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Burds v. Union Pac. Corp., 223 F.3d 814, 817
holding that the ftca bars claimants from bringing suit in federal court until they have exhausted their administrative remedies holding that within the eighth circuit benefit claimants must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing claims for wrongful denial to court holding that an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief from detention recognizing the general rule that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from federal courts  holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court