Egashira

MEMORANDUM *

We first turn to Appellants’ ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) claim. Because Appellee bravely waived exhaustion of plan remedies, we turn directly to the merits of the case. We review the district court’s interpretation de novo. See Boston Mut. Ins. v. Murphree, 242 F.3d 899 , 902 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We review the district court’s ... interpretation of the [ERISA] Plan’s coordination clause, de novo.”).

We find that under the terms of the Boeing Layoff Plan, Appellants do not qualify for layoff benefits. Although the decision to terminate their current position was involuntary, Boeing gave Appellants the opportunity to seek alternative employment within Boeing. If they could not find such employment within a certain time period, Appellants then would have been laid off-and thus entitled to benefits at that time. Here, Appellants declined to *809 seek other employment within Boeing. Rather, they voluntarily resigned in order to take a position with IBM/GTE. Consequently, their decision to leave employment with Boeing was voluntary.

Furthermore, because Appellants failed to show reasonable and detrimental reliance, extraordinary circumstances, or that the provisions of the plan at…