With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 1030, 1049 (11th Cir.1995). Congress explicitly included certain private rights of action in the IGRA; for example, a Tribe may sue the Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission if a management contract is not approved or disapproved within the period set by statute, 25 U.S.C. § 2711(d), and all decisions of the Commission are subject to federal judicial review, 25 U.S.C. § 2714. See Tamiami Partners, Ltd., 63 F.3d at 1049. “‘[Wjhen legislation expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, courts should not expand the coverage of the statute to subsume other remedies.’ ” Id. (quoting National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. National Assoc. of R.R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453, 458, 94 S.Ct. 690, 693, 38 L.Ed.2d 646 (1974)); Davids v. Coyhis, 869 F.Supp. 1401, 1410 (E.D.Wis.1994) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, the Court holds that plaintiffs

A: holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court
B: holding that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over securities act class actions
C: holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed
D: holding that igras specific grant of federal jurisdiction for certain actions indicates congress intended to limit federal jurisdiction to those instances
D.