Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Section 1452 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] party may remove a claim or cause of action to the district court for the district where such civil action is pending, if such district court has jurisdiction-of such claim or cause of action under section 1334 of this title.” Therefore, by its plain language, section 28 U.S.C. § 1452 differs from 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) in that the former permits “a party” to remove a lawsuit to federal court while the latter permits removal by the “defendant or defendants” in the case. Accordingly, the Court finds that all of the Defendants to this action were not required to join in the notice of removal filed by Defendant American Security Insurance Company under 28 U.S.C. § 1452. See Creasy v. Coleman Furniture Corp., 763 F.2d 656, 660 (4th Cir.1985) . See also Daleske v. Fairfield Cmtys., Inc.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party
B. holding that parties may consent to jurisdiction on noncore matters
C. recognizing that in a divorce action one partys limited partnership interest could not be assigned to the other party without the consent of the general partner
D. holding that in bankruptcyrelated matters any one party may remove the state court action without the consent of the other parties
E. holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.