With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". does not apply. In Jones, the Supreme Court held that “a cause of action ‘arisfes] under an Act of Congress enacted’ after December 1, 1990 — and therefore is governed by § 1658’s 4-year statute of limitations-if the plaintiffs claim against the defendant was made possible by a post — 1990 enactment.” 541 U.S. at 382, 124 S.Ct. 1836 (alteration in original). This principle governs even if the new law amended a preexisting law; Congress often creates new causes of action by amending existing statutes, and § 1658(a) is not limited “to entirely new sections of the United States Code.” Id. at 381, 124 S.Ct. 1836. “What matters is the substantive effect of an enactment — the creation of new rights of action and corresponding liabilities — not the format in which it appears in t th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Consequently, USERRA established additional

A: holding in dicta that a jury trial is not available for claims under erisa
B: holding that dischargeability proceedings are inherently equitable in nature and as such parties are not entitled to jury trials
C: holding that no right to a jury trial existed after one of the plaintiffs claims was dismissed leaving only an equitable claim
D: holding that claims under the vrra are equitable and a plaintiff is not entitled to a jury trial
D.