With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on or over navigable waters.” MLC Fishing, Inc. v. Velez, 667 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir.2011). Therefore, general maritime jurisdiction does not encompass injuries caused on extensions of land, which fail the necessary locality prong articulated in Vasquez. In addition to general maritime jurisdiction, Congress has created an express right for “[a] seaman injured in the course of employment ... to bring a civil action at law ... against the employer” in federal court. 46 U.S.C. § 30104 (“Jones Act”). The Jones Act thus creates an explicit cause of action, which in turn provides a predicate for federal jurisdiction based on federal question jurisdiction, distinct from general maritime jurisdiction. See Nielsen v. Weeks Marine Inc., 910 F.Supp. 84, 86-87 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (Nicker-son, J.) (<HOLDING>); see also Holloway v. Pagan River Dockside

A: holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act
B: holding that article iii courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists
C: holding that the jones act provides an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction
D: holding that a federal court may adjudicate claims for which there is no independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction if the nonjurisdictional claims are related to other claims for which the does have jurisdiction
C.