Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1) (emphasis added). Rule 8(a)(1) is satisfied if the complaint generally “say[s] enough about jurisdiction to create some reasonable likelihood that the court is not about to hear a case that it is not supposed to have the power to hear.” Hammes v. AAMCO Transmissions, Inc., 33 F.3d 774, 778 (7th Cir.1994). Thus, it is “not essential that a complaint set forth the statutory basis for the court’s jurisdiction in order to assume jurisdiction, if the facts alleged provide a basis for the assumption of jurisdiction.” AmSouth Bank v. Dale, 386 F.3d 763, 779 (6th Cir.2004) (quoting Rohler v. TRW, Inc., 576 F.2d 1260, 1264 (7th Cir.1978)). See also Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 (4th Cir.2006) ; Blanchard v. Terry & Wright, Inc., 331 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that exercise of jurisdiction over plaintiffs state law claims was proper on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs had erroneously claimed diversity jurisdiction because a legitimate federal question was also presented and the state law claims formed part of the same case or controversy as the federal claim
B. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
C. holding that when all federal claims have been dismissed the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
D. holding that the federal district courts dismissal of the plaintiffs federal claims deprived the court of its jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims arising from the same incident
E. holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.