in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court to collect the unpaid loan balance.  Preston's answer alleged that he owed no money on the loans because his retirement benefits from the Plans exceeded his loan balance.  He argued that the Trustees could adjust the amounts by deducting the outstanding loan from his retirement benefits and remit the difference to him.  Preston contemporaneously filed a counterclaim seeking "$11,573, together with interest at 10 percent per annum from February 1, 1982," as well as attorneys' fees and costs.


7
When the state trial court learned that the United States Department of Labor was investigating the Plans, it suspended processing Preston's case until August 2, 1993, when it resumed consideration of the controversy.  On March 4, 1994, the state courtgranted the Trustees summary judgment on the issue of liability and scheduled a trial date to assess damages.  The state court dismissed Preston's counterclaim after determining that it joined federal issues over which it had no jurisdiction.  The state trial judge assigned the case to a referee to resolve the issue of damages.


8
On February 3, 1995, when Preston filed the instant complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, it was drafted in three counts.  Count I alleged that the Trustees had breached their fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. § 1104, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), by commencing a state court action against Preston, in pursuit of his outstanding loan balance "in violation of the Plans' documents and