Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the Court construes each count as if it were alleged against both Siemens and Dandekar. 3 . The Court construes Count IV as a state law claim because neither Title VII nor Section 1981 is mentioned as a basis for this count, and Plaintiff's response only proffers state law arguments. (R. 27, Pl.’s Resp. at 12.) 4 . Were the Court to consider these additional documents, the Court would need to exercise its discretion and convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 12(d). Because the Court finds that consideration of such documents would not change its analysis, however, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgement. See Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d 575, 583 (7th Cir.2009)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment
B. holding that a court must convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under fedrcivp 56 only when the jurisdictional question intertwines with the merits of the case
C. holding that district court has discretion when deciding to convert a defendants motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment
D. holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment
E. holding plaintiffs reference to and attachment of franchise agreement excerpts in opposition to defendants motion did not convert motion to dismiss to motion for summary judgment because plaintiff did not introduce support for arguments beyond the allegations in the complaint
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.