Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
elements of the vehicles’ emission control systems. See No. 7:16CV00197 Compl. ¶ 20; No. 7:16CV00198 Compl. ¶22. Although the plaintiffs note that the installation of such devices is prohibited by the Clean Air Act, they assert that the operation of motor vehicles containing such devices is prohibited by Virginia law, namely the statutory and regulatory provisions cited above. Thus, to the extent the plaintiffs’ claims for equitable relief are based on the assertion that their vehicles are illegal to operate in Virginia, their claims could rise or fall entirely based on the interpretation of state law. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized, “a plaintiffs right to relief for a given claim necess 670, 2016 WL 3067686 (D. N.J. May 19, 2016) . To the extent Volkswagen argues that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims
B. holding that the plaintiffs claims against volkswagen and others did not necessarily raise a federal question since they were also based on the assertion that the plaintiffs vehicle did not comply with state law
C. holding that the plaintiffs state statutory claim against volkswagen did not give rise to federal question jurisdiction under grable since the claim was based on alternative theories some of which had no necessary federal element
D. holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court
E. holding that the first grable requirement was met where the plaintiff in order to prevail on his legal malpractice claim had to show that he would have prevailed on his claim under federal patent law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.