employee in question had performed some covered work for N.T. Audio, the auditors did not establish that any of the unreported hours corresponded to this covered work. As a result, the Trustees cannot prove “the fact of damage” that some of the unreported hours corresponded to covered work, and have, therefore, failed to meet their threshold burdens. Thus, it was inappro priate for the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of the Plans. Ill For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Plans, through, now, their Trustees, is REVERSED and REMANDED. 1 . Before we were able to consider the merits of this appeal, we had to deal with the jurisdictional bar presented by Local 159 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 185 F.3d 978, 981-84 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Subsequent to oral argument, on April 10,
holding that because an erisa plan is not a participant beneficiary or fiduciary subject matter jurisdiction did not exist under  502e of erisa over a suit brought by such a plan holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant 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 a plan participant or beneficiary may not recover extracontractual damages in an erisa suit for breach of fiduciary duty under  502a2 and 409a only the plan may recover damages in such cases holding that a hospital could not be an erisa beneficiary