Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of any specific contractual duty. Notwithstanding, Granite Rock contends that the alleged tortious interference claim still meets the requirement that “the resolution of the lawsuit be focused upon and governed by the terms of the contract.” Painters & Decorators, 707 F.2d at 1071. Granite Rock’s theory is that because breach of the underlying contract is a necessary element of the tortious interference claim, the resolution of the tort claim is “focused upon” and “governed by” the contract. We reject Granite Rock’s argument, because its position clashes with the plain language of section 301(a) and the Majestic Housing requirement that the underlying agreement must have created the rights or liabilities which the parties seek to vindicate by their suit. Majestic Housin .1982) ; United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local No.
```
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 that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached
C. holding that mere reference to a collective bargaining agreement does not confer federal question jurisdiction under section 301a
D. holding that a complaint for interference with a collective bargaining agreement against a nonparty to that agreement is not actionable under  301a of the lmra
E. holding that oral agreement made in connection with reinstatement should be treated as part of collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.