Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claim is based on Eastus’s termination. The relationship of the FMLA and emotional distress claims, therefore, is similar to the relationship between the claims in the Na-bors case. For both claims in the instant ease, the single wrong is the termination, and the various claims are simply different theories of recovery. As a result, the FMLA claim and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim are not “separate and independent claim[s] or cause[s] of action” under § 1441(e). Because § 1441(c) does not authorize the remand of state law claims unless they are separate and independent from the removed federal question claim, the district court abused its discretion by remanding this claim. See John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Found. v. Mauro, 21 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 577, 130
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that  1441c does not allow the remand of claims that are not separate and independent
B. holding that claims for pain and suffering are the separate property of a spouse
C. holding that removal under section 1441c may only be done by the original defendant
D. recognizing that  1441c limits removal to situations in which a federal question is joined with a separate and independent claim of a nonfederal nature
E. holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.