premise subject matter jurisdiction on section 502(k) of ERISA. However, plaintiffs contend that the statute is not an exclusive grant of jurisdiction and that other parties, if they can show an injury and that the injury falls within the zone of interests protected by ERISA, may bring suit under the statute. See, e.g., Fentron Indus. v. National Shopmen Pension Fund, 674 F.2d 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1982) (“There is nothing in the legislative history to suggest either that the lis 845 F.2d 1286, 1288-89 (5th Cir.1988); Grand Union Co. v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass’n., 808 F.2d 66, 71 (D.C.Cir.1987); Northeast Dept. ILGWU v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 153-54 (3d Cir.1985); Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. v. Central States, 794 F.2d 221, 228 (6th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 645,
holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction recognizing that the court has construed broadly the grant of jurisdiction in section 201 holding that based on franchise tax board grant of jurisdiction in section 502e is exclusive