With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the cause of Ford’s injuries was not the Defendants’ various alleged negligent acts and omissions, but rather the subsequent false arrest and false imprisonment that flowed from those actions. Indeed, had the Defendants miscalculated the duration of Ford’s supervised release and requested arrest warrants be issued, but not arrested and detained Ford, Ford’s Amended Complaint suggests that he would not have suffered any damage. For these reasons, Ford’s damages arise out of his false arrest and/or false imprisonment, not the alleged negligent actions of the USPC and CSOSA Defendants. See Kugel, 947 F.2d at 1507 (concluding that plaintiffs claims, though couched in terms of negligence, sounded in defamation and were therefore barred under FTCA); see also Snow-Erlin, 470 F.3d at 809 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that Ford’s

A: holding that state jurisdiction over claims by union members against employer for false arrest false imprisonment and malicious prosecution were not preempted under garmon
B: holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative
C: holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest
D: holding that plaintiff could not sidestep the ftcas exclusion of false imprisonment claims by suing for the damage of false imprisonment under the label of negligence
D.