of federal jurisdiction in ERISA is limited to suits brought by certain parties, as to whom Congress presumably determined that a right to enter federal court was necessary to further the statute’s purposes.” Id. Additionally, the Court concluded that ERISA carefully enumerates the parties entitled to seek relief under § 502; it does not provide anyone other than participants, beneficiaries, or fiduciaries with an express cause of action for a declaratory judgment on the issues in this case. A suit for similar relief by some other party does not “arise under” that provision. Id. at 27, 103 S.Ct. at 2855. Given such a strong statement by the Supreme Court, plaintiffs’ contention that section 502(k) is a nonexclusive grant of jurisdiction lacks merit. See Provident Life, 906 F.2d at 988 (<HOLDING>). Nothing in section 502(k)’s jurisdictional
holding that section 502 is an exclusive grant of jurisdiction holding that the clause at issue granted jurisdiction but not exclusive jurisdiction holding that based on franchise tax board grant of jurisdiction in section 502e is exclusive holding that application of the exclusive remedies provision in tax code section 4209 deprives courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive