because subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ ERISA claim is not provided by the general federal question statute, the Declaratory Judgment Act, the APA, or the Mandamus and Venue Act, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims made by plaintiffs Ocean Breeze and Centurion Health and Welfare Benefit Plan. However, the court is of the opinion that subject matter jurisdiction exists over claims asserted by plaintiff PBA, the collective bargaining agent for Ocean Breeze security employees, the plan participants. As collective bargaining agent for the plan participants, plaintiff PBA stands in their shoes and, therefore, may bring an action under section 502(k) of ERISA as a “participant.” See Communications Workers of America v. AT & T, 828 F.Supp. 73, 75 (D.D.C.1993) (<HOLDING>) IV. Sovereign Immunity Defendants contend
holding that only members of the enumerated classes have standing to bring a civil action under erisa section 502a3 holding that despite the specific provisions of section 502 an employer may bring an action under erisa to enforce its terms where the employer alleges specific and personal injury holding that a union attorney representing a member in a collective bargaining activity enjoys immunity from a legal malpractice action filed by an individual grievant holding that union members had standing to bring rico claims for reduced compensation under collective bargaining agreement holding that collective bargaining agent representing employees had representational standing and therefore could bring an action under section 502 of erisa