With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a state law claim does not seek to recover or replace benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan and is based on a violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA, it is not preempted by ERISA. Haynes v. Haynes, 178 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.] 2005, pet. denied); see also Davila, 542 U.S. at 210, 124 S.Ct. at 2496. Necessarily, state law claims based on the violation of a legal duty independent of ERISA would not “relate to” ERISA so as to implicate preemption or federal jurisdiction. In such a case, absent diversity, and with no other basis for “arising under” jurisdiction, it is the federal court that would be deprived of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cause. See, e.g., Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 352, 116 S.Ct. 862, 865-66, 133 L.Ed.2d 817 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Hook v. Morrison Milling Co., 38 F.3d 776,

A: recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa
B: holding subject matter jurisdiction divested because federal cause of action had been dismissed without prejudice
C: holding veilpiercing claim does not state cause of action under erisa and cannot independently support federal subject matter jurisdiction
D: holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act
C.