Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
compliment each other, but courts have found that in most cases they are so intertwined in the defendant’s argument that they appear to raise the same question: are the plaintiffs claims so “completely preempted” that the only way to avoid removal due to federal question jurisdiction is through the “artful pleading” of the state-law claim? Thus, these courts have viewed “complete preemption” as a prerequisite to the application of the “artful pleading doctrine”. See, Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475, 118 S.Ct. 921 (“The artful pleading doctrine allows removal where federal law completely preempts a plaintiffs state-law claim”); Braco v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc., 138 F.Supp.2d. 1260, 1268, n. 10 (C.D.Cal.2001); Crump v. WorldCom, Inc., 128 F.Supp.2d. 549, 559-60 (W.D.Tenn.2001); Minnesota by Hatch, at 373. The instant
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing doctrine
B. holding that the application of the fair use doctrine at the pleading stage is appropriate
C. recognizing that the artful pleading doctrine in practice is subsumed by the complete preemption doctrine
D. recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time
E. holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.