With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and has not argued that this defendant is a Thimerosal Defendant. Accordingly, the Holders have not shown that the district court e 78 F.3d 472, 477 (5th Cir.2002) (stating that an order granting a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). 7 . 343 F.3d 765 (5th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 991, 125 S.Ct. 1823, 161 L.Ed.2d 755 (2005). 8 . 408 F.3d 177 (5th Cir.2005). 9 . 381 F.3d 501 (5th Cir.2004). 10 . 385 F.3d at 571. 11 . Id. at 573 (quoting Travis v. Irby, 326 F.3d 644, 646-47 (5th Cir.2003)). 12 . Id. 13 . Id. at 574. 14 . Id. 15 . Id. at 575; see also Rainwater v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 391 F.3d 636, 638-39 (5th Cir.2004) (noting that the Smallwood "common defense” rule only applies if the defense is "dispositive of all claims against all defendants”). 16 . 408 F.3d at 184 (<HOLDING>). 17 . 381 F.3d 501, 503-04 (5th Cir.2004)

A: holding that claims against a city police chief in his official capacity were really claims against the city
B: holding that claims against vaccine manufacturers were subject to the vaccine act but claims against thimerosal manufacturers were not therefore the cause was properly removed based on a fraudulent joinder theory
C: holding claims based on the fair labor standards act subject to arbitration
D: holding the state law claims were not preempted
B.