enumerates the parties entitled to seek relief under § 502(a), which includes participants, beneficiaries, and fiduciaries. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a). Accordingly, “a federal court has no jurisdiction to hear a civil action under ERISA that is brought by a person who is not a ‘participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary.’ ” Harris v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.1994). In Michigan Affiliated Healthcare System, Inc. v. CC Systems Corporation of Michigan, 139 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.1998), the Sixth Circuit held that § 502 “preempts state claims by ‘participants or beneficiaries’ to enforce certain rights guaranteed by ERISA. Claims by anyone other than a ‘participant or beneficiary,’ however, fall outside the scope of ERISA’s civil enforcement section.” Id. at 550 (<HOLDING>). The determination of whether a person is a
holding district court should have abstained pursuant to younger and thus remanding to district court to dismiss without prejudice holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding that it is axiomatic that remanding a case to state court terminates the jurisdiction of a federal bankruptcy or district court over that case holding that a circuit court has no jurisdiction to review a district courts discretionary decision not to depart downward from the guidelines but would have jurisdiction if the district court based its decision on the belief that it did not have the authority to depart holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court