Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
amount of time. And, while Movants cite to their jury demand as a reason to withdraw the reference now, the Court may withdraw the reference if and when a trial is necessary, rather than at this early stage of deciding a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court directs that this adversary proceeding be now returned to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order. SO ORDERED. 1 . The Bankruptcy Court determined that the Trustee’s fraudulent conveyance claims were statutorily core, and that the unjust enrichment claims were non-core as pled, without prejudice to the Trustee to replead. See In re Refco Inc., Adv. Pro. No. 07-03060(RDD) (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2008); see also In re Refco Inc. (Memphis Holdings), 461 B.R. 181, 184 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.2011) . Accordingly, since neither party contends the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no cause of action in california for unjust enrichment
B. holding that unjust enrichment claim could prevail contrary to the ucc priority system
C. holding that trustees unjust enrichment claim against memphis holdings defendants was statutorily core
D. holding that unjust enrichment claim alleging fraudulent inducement was based on tort theory
E. holding that a claim for unjust enrichment should not be dismissed because the court may find that the express contract was no longer in force
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.