With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". finding that the statute was preempted by ERISA, and (2) that third-party administrators providing services to ERISA plans fall within ERISA’s zone of interest, even if unenumerated therein. Korioth, 993 F.2d at 484; see also 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(A)-(B) (ERISA defines a “party in interest” as a person providing services to employee benefit plans. Here, plaintiffs indisputably provide services to such plans through their HMOs and PPOs). In NGS American, Inc. v. Barnes, 998 F.2d 296 (5th Cir.1993) (“NGSII”), affg 805 F.Supp. 462 (W.D.Tex.1992) (“NGSI”), the court again agreed that a third party administrator of an ERISA plan had standing to seek a declaration against the state that a state statute was preempted by ERISA. NGSII, 998 F.2d at 298 n. 2; see also NGSI, 805 F.Supp. at 465 (<HOLDING>). In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

A: recognizing that an employer had a dual role as administrator of plan and as employer and only the role of administrator was held to a fiduciary standard
B: holding that district courts order remanding an erisa benefits determination to a plan administrator was nonfinal and therefore not appealable after the remand to plan administrator plan participant still could appeal the district courts decision that erisa preempted her state law claim and if successful she would be able to pursue punitive damage
C: recognizing that benefit plans must designate a fiduciary to serve as the plan administrator
D: holding that even if a thirdparty administrator is not a fiduciary under erisa such an administrator still has standing  pursuant to   1331
D.