of parties empowered to sue under [section 502(a) ] is exclusive or that Congress intentionally omitted employers.”). Although no court has addressed section 502(k) of ERISA specifically, several circuits have examined sections 502(a) and 502(e) which, like section 502(k), list those parties who may bring suit under the statute. An overwhelming majority of the circuits, including the Fourth Circuit, have concluded that the grant of jurisdiction found in section 502(e) is exclusive. In other words, Congress granted subject matter jurisdiction over only those types of suits brought by the parties enumerated in the statute. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Waller, 906 F.2d 985, 987-88 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 982, 111 S.Ct. 512, 112 L.Ed.2d 524 (1990); Giardono, 867 F.2d at 413 (<HOLDING>); Hermann Hosp. v. MEBA Medical & Benefits
holding that a state has subject matter jurisdiction to grant a divorce if one of the spouses is domiciled in the state holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive holding that based on franchise tax board grant of jurisdiction in section 502e is exclusive holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive