With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 124 S.Ct. 2488. As the Davila Court succinctly stated: “Congresses] intent to make the ERISA civil enforcement mechanism exclusive would be undermined if state causes of action that supplement the ERISA § 502(a) remedies were permitted, even if the elements of the state cause of action did not precisely duplicate the elements of an ERISA claim.” Id. at 216, 124 S.Ct. 2488, see also Pilot Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 54, 107 S.Ct. 1549 (stating that “policy choices reflected in the inclusion of certain remedies and the exclusion of others under the federal scheme would be completely undermined if ERISA-plan participants and beneficiaries were free to obtain remedies under state law that Congress rejected in ERISA”); Elliot v. Fortis Benefits Ins. Co., 337 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Van Nattas’ state law

A: holding that a complaint that seeks nonerisa damages for what are essentially claim processing causes of action clearly fall within the ambit of  1132 preemption exemplified by pilot life
B: holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court
C: holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted
D: holding claims under the montana unfair trade practices statute were conflictpreempted because the montana law provided nonerisa damages for essentially claim processing causes of action
A.