the scope of ERISA’s civil enforcement provision, § 502. Id. State law claims falling outside the ambit of § 502, consequently, even if preempted by § 514, remain governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, and therefore, are not removable to federal court under the complete-preemption principles enunciated in Metropolitan Life. See id. (stating that ERISA preemption under § 514(a) “without more, does not convert [a] state claim into an action arising under federal law”); Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 23-27, 103 S.Ct. 2841 (implying that preemption under § 514(a) does not permit a defendant to remove a suit brought in state court to federal court when the plaintiffs state claim does not fall within the scope of ERISA’s civil remedy provisions); see also Giles, 172 F.3d at 337-38 (<HOLDING>); Dukes, 57 F.3d at 355 (holding that a
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law holding state law claims that fall outside the realm of  502 even if preempted by  514 remain governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule and are therefore not removable holding that a claim for refusing to authorize psychiatric benefits for treatment of severe substance abuse problem was preempted by  514 and  502 of erisa holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law