Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1976). The Supreme Court has held that the purpose of this statute was to require the federal courts to fashion a uniform body of federal law for the enforcement of national labor laws. See Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 923, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957); Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour, 369 U.S. 95, 103-06, 82 S.Ct. 571, 576-78, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962). 3 . See Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 1288 (West 1982). This statute of limitations is not applicable except to the extent that it may be applicable in state court to other than section 301 claims. See Del Costello v. Teamsters Union,-U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) . 4 . The second cause of action for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that plaintiffs title vii claims were not preempted by section 301 despite collective bargaining agreement and stating that the purposes of  301 are not subverted when a federal court hears a claim brought under a federal statute
B. holding that an employee may sue for breach of a collective bargaining agreement without the union
C. holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
D. holding that  301 preempts state claims against nonsignatories where interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement is required for resolution
E. holding that the statute of limitations applicable to a section 301 suit was the same as that which applies to suits against an employer for breach of the collective bargaining agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.