Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims that plaintiff had also filed. Id. at 256. The court, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), disagreed, stating, “[i]n a federal-question case, the termination of the foundational federal claim does not divest the district court of power to exercise supplemental jurisdiction but, rather, sets the stage for an exercise of the court’s informed discretion.” Id. at 256-257. Perhaps defendants mean to argue that the court must dismiss the pendent state claims because the federal claims have not only been determined to be without merit, but that they never were “substantial” within the constitutional sense in which that term was used in cases such as United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and Newman v. Burgin. Newman v. Burgin, 930 F.2d 955, 963 (1st Cir.1991) , citing United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit  and the district court has considerable authority whether or not to exercise this power in light of such considerations as judicial economy convenience fairness to litigants and eomity 
B. holding if the legislature had the power to confer upon the county commissioners jurisdiction to hear and determine the question as to whether or not a town was of undue extent and to deprive it of a part of its territory then the proceeding being statutory before a body of limited powers the record must show affirmatively that such a case was brought before them as they were authorized to hear and determine and that all the jurisdictional facts were found to exist where the jurisdiction and power to hear and determine depends upon the existence of a fact that fact must appear or the proceedings are coram non judice and void
C. holding that no substantial question of federal law was required to be answered to determine the plaintiffs statelaw legal malpractice negligence and breach of contract claims
D. holding that the power of a federal court to hear and to determine statelaw claims in nondiversity cases depends upon the presence of at least one substantial federal claim in the lawsuit
E. recognizing a distinction between the power of a federal court to hear statelaw claims and the discretionary exercise of that power
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.