Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
scheme by filing a parallel proceeding before the NLRC complaining about his employment with IPS. The ap-pellees argue that the district court should not exercise jurisdiction because some conduct about which the appellants complain is actually required by Filipino laws and regulations. In their motion to dismiss, the appellees relied heavily upon Section 10 of the Migrant Workers Act to argue that the NLRC has exclusive jurisdiction and is a strong expression of the Philippines’ interest in this case. While Section 10 is one fact that weighs in favor of dismissal insofar as it demonstrates that the Philippines regulates the complained-of activity, contrary to the appellees’ argument, Section 10, alone, does not support dismissal of the appellants’ ease. See Randall, 778 F.2d at 1150 . On balance, some evidence relevant to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the grant of subject matter jurisdiction in  502e1 is exclusive
B. holding that the exclusive jurisdiction provisions of saudi arabias labor law cannot deprive an american court of subject matter jurisdiction rejecting outright the notion that the law of a foreign country can unilaterally curtail the power of our  courts to hear a dispute unless some other agreement or treaty requires that result
C. holding that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petitioners collateral attack under  1331
D. holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction
E. holding that the state law of preclusion must be followed even when federal jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim is exclusive
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.