With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to federal court.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 413 F.3d at 907 (stating that § 1144(a) provides an affirmative defense against claims not completely preempted by ERISA). However, it would be grossly inaccurate to suggest that removal is foreclosed. Rather, if the claim falls under § 1132, it is completely preempted by federal law and thus removable. Neumann, 376 F.3d at 779-80. Plaintiff interprets the Court’s order to implement a two-part test, by which establishing preemption under § 1144 is an absolute prerequisite for complete preemption under § 1132. This, however, is incorrect. Finding a claim completely preempted under § 1132 is not dependent upon first finding express preemption under § 1144. See Harris v. Deaconess Health Servs. Corp., 61 F.Supp.2d 889, 893 (E.D.Mo.1999) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, preemption under both sections

A: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case
B: holding that judicial analysis of the preemption under  1144 cannot help a federal court determine whether it has subjectmatter jurisdiction
C: holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction
D: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction
B.