Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to” an employee benefit plan and, consequently, be preempted, even though the state law’s effect on benefit plans is only incidental. Ingersoll-Rand, 498 U.S. at 139, 111 S.Ct. 478. These cases, where the state law’s effect on ERISA-encompassed employee welfare benefit plans, are the more difficult types of cases to ascertain the proper outcome. Further adding to the confusion is the fact that despite Congress’s intention that ERISA cut a wide swath of preemption through state laws, the Supreme Court has recognized certain limitations: “Some state actions may affect employee benefit plans in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a manner to warrant a finding that the law ‘relates to’ the plan.” Shaw, 463 U.S. at 100 n. 21, 103 S.Ct. 2890; see also Mackey, 486 U.S. at 841, 108 S.Ct. 2182 . Thus, the Court’s decisions do not provide a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that federal common law of erisa preempts state law in the interpretation of erisa benefit plans
B. holding that a specific provision of georgias garnishment statute was preempted by its express reference to erisa plans but at the same time refusing to extend erisa preemption to georgias entire garnishment procedure
C. holding that a georgia garnishment statute that solely applied to erisa employee benefit plans was preempted
D. holding florida exemption statute for employee benefit plans was not preempted by erisa due to savings clause
E. holding that erisa did not preempt a states general garnishment statute even when applied to collect judgments against plan participants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.