regarding Plaintiffs termination, Knights’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs COBRA claim is denied without prejudice with leave to renew by motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery. B. Count II—ERISA Claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty In Count II of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Aetna is liable for five, and Knights liable for four, separate breaches of fiduciary duty under § § 502(a)(2) and 409(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a). See Amended Compl., ¶¶ 91, 95, 97, 99, 109, 110, 113, 117. All of these alleged breach es of fiduciary duty seek extra-contractual damages that would be paid to Plaintiff, not the plan, so they are improper under ERISA. See Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134, 144, 105 S.Ct. 3085, 87 L.Ed.2d 96 (1985) (<HOLDING>); see also Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489,
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 plaintiff is a plan participant and he is seeking to recover for the plan as a whole these are the only requirements on the face of the statute itself holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant 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 fiduciary could not be held personally liable to plan participant or beneficiary for extracontractual compensatory or punitive damages