Multi-employer plans are overseen by a board of trustees with equal voting strength held by representatives of the labor union and the employers who contribute to the plan. See, e.g., Flynn v. Hach, 138 F. Supp. 2d 334, 337 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (noting that multi-employer plans have equal representation from labor and management). See, Pro Football Hall of Fame, "Bert Bell," available athttps://www.profootballhof.

rom the Plan, its administration, and the rights and benefits it affords its participants” and “[were] based on the same facts and supported by the same allegations that underlie the ERISA claims”); Berry v. MVP Health Plan, Inc., 1:06–CV–120 (NAM/RFT, 2006 WL 4401478, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2006) (“[P]laintiffs' [NYGBL] § 349 claim, which ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan and falls within the scope of ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, is preempted.”) (citing Shackelton v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 817 F.Supp. 277 (N.D.N.Y.1993)). Accordingly, because all of the Plaintiff's state law claims are preempted, the Court grants the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses these claims with prejudice. Gateway, Inc. v. ACS Commercial Solutions, Inc., 07 CIV. 6732CM, 2008 WL 1741249, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2008) (“The motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law claims [ ] is granted, and those claims are dismissed with prejudice, because they are preempted by ERISA.”); Flynn v. Hach, 138 F.Supp.2d 334, 357 (E.D.N.Y.2001) (“The court hereby dismisses these claims with prejudice as preempted by ERISA.”). III. CONCLUSION