Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
any state cause of action for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization. 390 U.S. 557, 88 S.Ct. 1235, 20 L.Ed.2d 126. Then, twenty years later, in Metropolitan Life, the Court extended the complete preemption principle to ERISA. 481 U.S. 58, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 95 L.Ed.2d 55. The Court concluded that Section 502 of ERISA possessed “that extraordinary pre-emptive power” because “the language of the jurisdiction subsection of ERISA’s civil enforcement pro visions closely parallelled] that of § 301 of the LMRA.” Id. at 65, 107 S.Ct. at 1547, 95 L.Ed.2d at 64. The Court has declined to extend the complete pre-emption doctrine beyond the LMRA and ERISA. See, e.g., Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del., 366 U.S. 656, 81 S.Ct. 1303, 6 L.Ed.2d 584 (1961) . The complete pre-emption doctrine ' does not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the court of claims did not have jurisdiction over plaintiffs first amendment claim of improper removal
B. holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court
C. holding that although the ngpa authorizes certain price ceilings for natural gas it is the gas sales contract not federal law that creates the right to receive any price at all
D. holding that fehba does not completely preempt state law
E. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.