showing that pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile is generally sufficient to excuse a plaintiff from the exhaustion requirement. However, if a plaintiff failed in a timely fashion to pursue administrative remedies that were available and open, the plaintiff cannot later claim futility based on her inability to pursue those remedies any longer. See, e.g., Tiger v. AT & T Technologies Plan for Employees’ Pensions, Disability Benefits, 633 F.Supp. 532, 534 (E.D.N.Y.1986) (McLaughlin, L) ("[A]bsent equitable considerations, the failure to comply with reasonable time constraints prescribed by the Plan’s review procedure precludes judicial review of a claim for benefits.") (citations omitted). 8 . See Springer v. Wal-Mart Assocs. Group Health Plan, 908 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Ludwig v. NYNEX Serv. Co., 838 F.Supp. 769
holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court holding that the trial court had abused its discretion in dismissing the case without allowing appellants an opportunity to amend holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies holding mason did not take away discretion from district court to allow suit without exhaustion of administrative remedies holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court