Inc., 57 F.3d 350, 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1009, 116 S.Ct. 564, 133 L.Ed.2d 489 (1995). If both conditions are not met, however, the federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and the matter should be remanded. Only if the complaint asserts a state law claim that can be reasonably characterized as a claim under any of ERISA’s civil enforcement provisions can the action be properly removed. Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 66, 107 S.Ct. at 1547-48; see also Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 21, 103 S.Ct. at 2852 (“The express grant of federal jurisdiction in ERISA is limited to suits brought by certain parties [under § 1132(a)], as to whom Congress presumably determined that a right to enter federal court was necessary to further the statute’s purposes.”); Buster, (<HOLDING>); Rice, 65 F.3d at 639 (holding that under
holding that because plaintiffs claim was not displaced by  1132a defendants complete preemption argument fails and district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction holding district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the document before the district court in this instance is not a vehicle for any recognized legal remedy under the rules 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 a district court could constitutionally impose rule 11 sanctions in a case in which was later determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction holding that the district court was not divested of subject matter jurisdiction upon the dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims