"[T]here was no evidence that the agreement amended an ERISA plan, and in fact, the agreement concerned post-termination payments that could only occur when Schieffer was no longer a participant in the company's plans.... Although the benefits were measured by the ERISA plans, ... [the employer] had not indicated that the funds came from anywhere other than its general assets ... [and] had not alleged that the payment would affect the administration of its ERISA plans or 'threaten ERISA's goal of uniformity in the administration of plan benefits'.... [The court concluded that the] arbitration demand did not seek benefits 'due under' an ERISA plan, and the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. " [Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp. v. Schieffer (Schieffer II), No. 12-1807, 2013 WL 1235235 (8th Cir. Mar. 28, 2013)]  MORE >>