Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be removed ... by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States.... This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal. 14 . In addition, a corollary effect of the district court’s order dismissing Red Cross from the suit was to dismiss Osteopathic’s cross-claim against Red Cross as well. Clearly, if the district court had a basis of independent subject matter jurisdiction over Osteopathic’s cross-claim against Red Cross, the district court could not have dismissed Red Cross, nor could it have declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case, merely because Carr opted not to pursue his claim against Red Cross. National Research Bureau, Inc. v. Bartholomew, 482 F.2d 386, 388-89 (3d Cir.1973) . Given the Supreme Court’s holding in American
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties
B. holding that once an issue with independent subject matter jurisdiction is before the court it must be allowed to proceed to a conclu sion without regard to the fate of the original claim
C. holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial
D. holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction
E. holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.