Opinion ID: 661453
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Remedy

Text: 18 The district court found that plaintiffs did not have a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in New York state court [b]ecause ERISA generally confers exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts. 813 F.Supp. at 1001 (relying upon National Carriers' Conference Comm. v. Heffernan, 440 F.Supp. 1280, 1283 (D.Conn.1977)). Plaintiffs sued here as plan fiduciaries to enjoin a practice violating ERISA. Congress has divested the state courts of jurisdiction over such claims. See 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(e)(1) (1988); see also Shofer v. Hack Co., 970 F.2d 1316, 1319 (4th Cir.1992) (where ERISA claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts, state courts are plainly without jurisdiction). Thus, [b]ecause the [New York] courts lack the jurisdiction to decide the plaintiffs' injunctive and declaratory ERISA claims, the plaintiffs are without a 'plain, speedy and efficient' remedy at state law. Thiokol Corp. v. Department of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 380 (6th Cir.1993); accord E-Systems, Inc. v. Pogue, 929 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir.) (TIA is inapplicable in an ERISA setting), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 585, 116 L.Ed.2d 610 (1991). 19 Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in finding that the state remedies available to plaintiffs were inadequate, and thus it had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.