ERISA plan entities are defined as “the principals, the employer, the plan, the plan fiduciaries and the beneficiaries.” Id.; see also Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Neusser, 810 F.2d 550, 556 (6th Cir.1987). While PONI is certainly a traditional ERISA plan entity, MVP is clearly not. MVP’s sole responsibility is to provide record-keeping services for PONI pursuant to the parties’ oral agreement. We have previously stated that “[w]hen an ERISA plan’s relationship with another entity is not governed by ERISA, it is subject to state law.” Provident Bank, 170 F.3d at 617. Specifically, the ERISA Plan “acquire[sj the "same rights of action under state law as other entities not created by ERISA.” Id.; see also Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Castonguay, 984 F.2d 1518, 1522 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). MVP argues that even if it is not a principal
holding that a canadian registered retirement savings plan rrsp that was just like an american ira was nonexempt because the exemption statute exempts iras not plans just like iras holding that erisa doesnt purport to regulate those relationships where a plan operates just like any other commercial entity holding that erisa does not preempt the plaintiffs claim that the erisa plan administrator is liable for medical malpractice where the plaintiff premised the claim solely on state law and did not invoke the erisa plan holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa