With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (alteration in original) (quoting Livadas, 512 U.S. at 125, 114 S.Ct. 2068); see Hawaiian Airlines, 512 U.S. at 262, 114 S.Ct. 2239 (“[A]s long as the state-law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself, the claim is ‘independent’ of the agreement for ... pre-emption purposes.” (quoting Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 408-10, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988))). In Kobold, where the state law required employers to transmit paycheck deductions to health insurance plans in a timely manner, we held that the claim was not preempted at Burnside’s second step because the CBA “unambiguously specif[ied]” the parties’ rights and obligations and therefore did not require interpretation. 832 F.3d at 1040; see also Balcorta, 208 F.3d at 1109-10 (<HOLDING>). In Matson v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 840

A: holding that plaintiffs state law claim against a nonsignatory to the cba was preempted by  301
B: holding negligent misrepresentation claim was not preempted because it neither sought benefits under plan nor alleged improper processing of benefits
C: holding that designation is neither a sentence nor a punishment
D: holding claim not preempted where court is required to read and apply cba provisions that are neither uncertain nor ambiguous
D.