that John Hancock is a fiduciary of the Plan. For this reason, summary judgment will be granted on Counts II, III, VII, and VIII of Santana’s complaint. B. Breach of Contract Count TV of Santana’s complaint asserts a breach of contract claim against John Hancock for failure to pay benefits under the Plan. John Hancock moves for summary judgment on this count, arguing that Santana’s common law contract action is preempted by ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a). Recognizing the expansive sweep of ERISA’s preemption provision, and given the fact that Santana has not contested John Hancock’s showing that his breach of contract claim is preempted, the Court will grant summary judgment on Count IV. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41, 47, 107 S.Ct. 1549, 1552-53, 95 L.Ed.2d 39 (1987) (<HOLDING>). C. SSA Counts V, VI, and IX of Santana’s
holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant holding that state law relates to an employee benefit plan and is therefore preempted by erisa if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding breach of contract claim not preempted under hola holding that state breach of contract action preempted because it relates to employee benefit plan