Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
103 S.Ct. 2841. Although the question was left unresolved in Franchise Tax Board, the Court resolved this issue definitively a few years later in Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 64-67, 107 S.Ct. 1542. There, the Court limited application of the complete preemption exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule, with respect to ERISA claims, to only those claims which fall court cannot resolve a dispute where a claim is preempted under § 514, but outside the scope of § 502 because it lacks removal jurisdiction); Rice v. Panchal, 65 F.3d 637, 639-40 (7th Cir.1995) (noting that if the issue is merely preemption under § 514(a), it serves only as a federal defense, and the complaint should not be recharacterized as federal); Allstate Ins. Co. v. 65 Sec. Plan, 879 F.2d 90, 93-94 (3d Cir.1989) ; Warner, 46 F.3d at 535 (that a claim is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where  514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable
B. holding that complete preemption exists when a remedy falls within the scope of or is in direct conflict with erisas civil enforcement section
C. holding that  514a preemption defense will not justify removal unless claim falls within the scope of erisas civil enforcement provision  502
D. holding  502 overpowers erisas savings clause
E. holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.