Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that [section 301] creates federal jurisdiction only over parties to the contract being sued upon.” Id. at 583. Plaintiff also cites Service, Hospital, Nursing Home, and Public Employees Union v. Commercial Property Services, Inc., 755 F.2d 499, 506 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 850, 106 S.Ct. 147, 88 L.Ed.2d 122 (1985), in which the Sixth Circuit held that “a district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a non-signatory to a collective bargaining agreement, where no rights or duties are stated in the terms and conditions of the agreement.” 755 F.2d at 506. However, in each of those cases, the plaintiff filed suit directly under § 301, seeking to recover against a non-signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, and the courts w . 1054, 1056-57 (E.D.Mich.1995) . Plaintiff has cited to no authority to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301
B. holding that plaintiffs negligence claim was preempted by section 301 because employers duty to provide a safe workplace was expressly created by the cba
C. holding that plaintiffs had standing to bring section 301 lawsuit to enforce seniority rights under cba
D. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
E. holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.