non-'party in interest' attorney-at-law when he holds disputed settlement funds on behalf of a plan-participant client who is a traditional ERISA party. As Harris Trust makes clear, an entity need not be acting under a duty imposed by one of ERISA's substantive provisions to be subject to liability under § 502(a)(3).”). 8 . Our conclusion is consistent with rulings made in our sister circuits, including the Seventh Circuit, where the court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Assocs. ' Health & Welfare Plan v. Wells, 213 F.3d 398, 401 (7th Cir.2000) held that a plan’s § 502(a)(3) action for a constructive trust over settlement funds presumed to be held in escrow by the beneficiary’s attorney ”nestle[d] comfortably” within "ERISA's concept of equity.” See also Bombardier, 354 F.3d at 358 n. 43 (<HOLDING>); Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v.
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding plans suit against law firm for constructive trust was a suit for appropriate equitable relief holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute holding that under california law a constructive trust may be sought only by the equitable owner of the trust res not by a creditor of the equitable owner recognizing constructive trust as appropriate equitable remedy