With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". district court had jurisdiction to issue the TRO. Other circuit courts have permitted section 301(a) actions against individual union members without expressly considering whether section 301(a) provides jurisdiction over individual union members or former officers. See Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Local Lodge D354, 897 F.2d 1400, 1401-02 (7th Cir.1990) (concluding the district court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by an international union under section 301 against a former local affiliate and its officers); Tile, Marble, Terrazzo, Finishers, Int'l Union v. Local 32, 896 F.2d 1404, 1416 (3d Cir.1990) (“Local 32”) (affirming an equitable judgment under section 301(a) against the former officers of a local affiliate); Hansen v. Huston, 841 F.2d 862, 863-64 (8th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Catalytic, Inc. v. Monmouth & Ocean County

A: holding that there was abundant evidence to support the charge against a union member for helping organize a nonaflcio local union of a different name where the union member admitted at the hearing that he contacted local contractors for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement for new union and serving as the new unions business manager
B: holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
C: recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
D: holding section 301a jurisdiction existed in a dispute between an international and a local union which arose under the union constitution and affirming a preliminary injunction against the suspended board members of the local
D.