With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". preemption under § 514, which is merely “a federal defense that cannot provide the basis for removal jurisdiction,” Felix, 387 F.3d at 1158; and complete preemption under § 502(a), which can support removal. Id. at 1156. The complete preemption doctrine asserted by Wellmark is an exception to the well-pleaded complaint rule. See Felix, 387 F.3d at 1154. A completely preempted claim “becomes a federal claim and can be the basis for removal jurisdiction.” Coldesina v. Estate of Simper, 407 F.3d 1126, 1137 (10th Cir.2005). “[A] state law claim is only ‘completely preempted’ under Taylor if it can be recharacterized as a claim under [federal law].” See Felix v. Lucent Tech., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir.2004); accord Schmeling [v. NOR-DAM ], 97 F.3d [1336] at 1342 [(10th Cir.1996) ] (<HOLDING>). Turgeau v. Administrative Review Bd., 446

A: holding that where congress does not establish a statute of limitations applicable to a federal cause of action a void which is commonplace in federal statutory law  this court has repeatedly borrowed the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action
B: holding that removal is proper based on complete preemption only when congress intended the federal cause of action to be exclusive
C: recognizing cause of action
D: holding that tension in supreme court cases can be resolved by reading complete preemption as a term of art  a description of the specific situation in which a federal law not only preempts a state law to some degree but also substitutes a federal cause of action for the state cause of action thereby manifesting congresss intent to permit removal
D.