Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
required to decide whether they had subject matter jurisdiction over those federal claims. In contrast, in the instant case, this Court’s jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff has not asserted any claims under § 301. She has asserted only state law claims. The question before this Court is whether non-signatories to a CBA can invoke § 301 preemption as a defense to a plaintiffs state law claims. Several courts have held that they can. See Covenant Coal, 977 F.2d at 899-900; Dashields v. Robertson, No. 99-1124, 2000 WL 564024, at *2 n. 8 (4th Cir. May 10, 2000) (“section 301 can preempt claims against non-signatories to a collective bargaining agreement”); Mullins v. International Union of Operating Eng’rs Local No. 77, 214 F.Supp.2d 655, 668 (E.D.Va.2002). See also Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 878
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
B. holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
C. holding state law claim substantially dependent upon interpretation of collective bargaining agreement must be dismissed for failure to use grievance procedure or as preempted by  301 of labor management relations act
D. holding that  301 preempts state claims against nonsignatories where interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is required for resolution
E. holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.