Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
damage to the tracks was done by the work of an independent contractor whom Chessie did not sue. The district court granted summary judgment on the trespass and negligent claims as a result, and Chessie does not ask us to review those decisions. Chessie’s idiosyncratic problems with its state-law claims do not provide a sound basis for finding an implied right of action, which would use congressional silence to work broad changes in the relationship between federal and state law affecting railroads. Finally, to support its argument for an implied right of action, Chessie cites court cases and administrative decisions in which the ICC Termination Act has been held to preempt various state laws. See, e.g., Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. v. Bickham, 602 F.Supp. 383, 384 (M.D. La. 1985) , aff’d mem., 775 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1985);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that under colorado law tjortious interference with a prospective business relation requires a showing of intentional and improper interference preventing formation of a contract
B. holding that railroads servitude could not be extinguished under state law and enjoining servient estate owners interference with railroad operation
C. holding that a claim for tortious interference with inheritance exists under texas law
D. holding federal court was not precluded by antiinjunction act from enjoining florida state court after state court entered a preliminary order
E. holding that to the extent compliance with the flsa interferes with the state budgetary process that interference is caused by state law not federal law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.