statute that makes no reference to, or indeed functions irrespective of, the existence of an ERISA plan.” Id. at 139, 111 S.Ct. 478. By contrast, PONI's breach-of-contract claim against MVP neither conflicts with ERISA's goal of national uniformity of the administration of employee benefit plans nor creates an alternate enforcement mechanism. Ohio's contract law is a traditional state-based law of general applicability that neither directly references ERISA plans nor relies on the existence of such plans to operate. PONI’s claim is limited to MVP’s obligation to provide record-keeping services to the ESOP plan and does not directly touch upon the operation of the plan itself. Therefore, we conclude that Ingersoll-Rand does not affect our analysis. See also Gerosa, 329 F.3d at 325 (<HOLDING>); Coyne & Delany Co., 98 F.3d at 1472 (holding
holding that the dismissal of a civil action in state court does not preclude a restitution order on the same claim holding that  1981 does not contain a cause of action against arms of the state holding that ingersollrand does not preclude statelaw cause of action against an actuary recognizing the cause of action recognizing cause of action