96 (1985) (emphasis in original). Recently, the Court has reiterated that “the express pre-emption provisions of ERISA are deliberately expansive, and designed to ‘establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern.’ ” Pilot Life, 481 U.S. at 45-46, 107 S.Ct. at 1552 (quoting Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 523, 101 S.Ct. 1895, 1906, 68 L.Ed.2d 402 (1981)). For these reasons, we find that Congress did intend ERISA to preempt claims that relate to an employee benefit plan even if the defendant is a nonfiduciary. Because ERISA preempts, the summary judgment is affirmed for all defendants. It is undisputed that none of the appellees are fiduciaries as defined under ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A). Thus, appellees cannot be sued to recove .D.Pa.1987) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Specifically, Gibson's first and second
holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act holding that the elements of a cause of action were not subject matter jurisdictional simply because the statute that created the cause of action provided that district courts shall have jurisdiction of such actions recognizing the cause of action holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action holding that when defendant was guilty of burglary but the only evidence that he was armed was from his own statement existence of the firearm went only to the degree of the offense and was not as an element of proof