With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Neither has he cited any evidence to show his night loader position was “secure” against other loaders with more seniority. A party resisting summary judgment must cite the court to relevant evidence in the record raising an issue of material fact. Peterson, 477 N.W.2d at 234. Smith has failed to comply with that requirement. The evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Smith, shows Land O’Lakes eliminated three loader positions in the order of least seniority of the person holding the position, and he was among the three least senior loaders. We conclude Smith failed to present evidence of sufficient caliber or quantity to allow a rational fact finder to find fraud by clear and convincing evidence. We therefore con 0-21, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Smith's claims are obviously based, in part,

A: holding state law claim preempted by  301 of labor management relations act only if application of state law requires interpretation of collective bargaining agreement
B: holding state law claim substantially dependent upon interpretation of collective bargaining agreement must be dismissed for failure to use grievance procedure or as preempted by  301 of labor management relations act
C: holding that former employees state law claim of fraud brought against his former employer was preempted by labor management relations act
D: holding section 301 preempted plaintiffs claim for tortious interference with contract because that claim would require interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement
B.