“complete” preemption, any state cause of action that seeks relief within the scope of ERISA’s civil enforcement section, § 502, “regardless of how artfully pleaded as a state action,” is removable to federal court. Giles v. NYL-Care Health Plans, Inc., 172 F.3d 332, 337 (5th Cir.1999); Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 66, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987). Section § 502(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a participant or beneficiary of an ERISA-regulated plan may bring a civil action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B); see also McGowin v. ManPower Int'l, Inc., 363 F.3d 556, 559 (5th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). If complete preemption exists, a plaintiffs
holding that complete preemption exists when a remedy falls within the scope of or is in direct conflict with erisas civil enforcement section holding that  514a preemption defense will not justify removal unless claim falls within the scope of erisas civil enforcement provision  502 holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists holding that erisas preemption of state contract claims in a benefitsdue action is an affirmative defense subject to waiver holding claims under the kentucky act were preempted because they conflicted with erisas civil enforcement scheme