With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment for $20,000 as emotional distress damages sustained on this claim. Levi first argues the district court committed error in determining which state’s law should apply. We disagree. The district court properly applied the relevant choice-of-law principles and determined California law applied. Levi next argues this cause of action arises exclusively in tort and, consequently, the one-year statute of limitations for torts applies to Tolan’s claim. See Cal.Civ.Proc. Code § 340(3) (West Supp.1984). Because Tolan filed this action approximately thirteen months after his discharge, Levi argues Tolan’s claim is time-barred. See id. Again, we disagree. See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 700 & n. 42, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 239 & n. 42, 765 P.2d 373, 401 & n. 42 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Under the California statute of limitations

A: holding that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to performance under a contract
B: holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies
C: recognizing cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in atwill employment contract
D: holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
B.