Protection Act is preempted by ERISA, it would not preempt Plaintiffs claim that there were also violations of the Michigan Business Corporation Act and therefore summary judgment as to Count I at this time would be inappropriate.” Pl.’s Resp. 7-8. Plaintiff offers no citation to legal authority for his argument. And an independent review reveals none. Rather, as the above authorities illustrate, a state-law cause of action that “relates to” an ERISA plan is preempted. Plaintiffs claimed violations of the Michigan Business Corporation Act do mpre than “relate to” a 330 (2d Cir.2005) (per curiam) (same); King v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 337 F.3d 421, 427-28 (4th Cir.2003) (same); with George v. Junior Achievement of Cent. Ind., Inc., 694 F.3d 812, 815 (7th Cir.2012) (Easterbrook, J.) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 11 F.3d
holding that underlying complaints filed by several plaintiffs all contained express allegations of property damage and that because all complaints arose from the same set of circumstances the allegations in any single complaint can be inferred in the other complaints holding that  510 applies to unsolicited informal complaints holding that the act applies prospectively to complaints filed after its effective date holding that informal complaints to superiors about discrimination constitute protected activity holding that the prison mailbox rule applies to  1983 complaints