With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the court held that right to federal jurisdiction granted by 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2)(B) cannot be asserted by anyone except for a plan beneficiary or participant. See Northeast, 764 F.2d at 151; see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. The 65 Security Plan, 879 F.2d 90, 94 (3d Cir. 1989). Although the Northeast court refused to allow jurisdiction over an assigned ERISA claim to be predicated on 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), it allowed the trial court to assert jurisdiction over a dispute between two ERISA funds under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since, in the opinion of the court, the claim was based on federal common law. See Northeast, 764 F.2d at 157 (Becker, J.) and 1165 (Sloviter, J., concurring); cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 67, 107 S.Ct. 1542, 1548, 95 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Judge VanArtsdalen was forced to reconcile

A: holding that suit by a beneficiary to recover benefits from a covered plan  falls directly under  502a1b of erisa and therefore was necessarily federal in character and subject to removal to federal court
B: holding that 28 usc  1331 provides jurisdiction over a suit which involves an erisa plan even though the suit purports to raise only state law claims since the suit is necessarily federal in character by virtue of the manifest intent of congress
C: holding that  1331 confers jurisdiction over a suit that arises under a right of action created by the apa
D: holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit
B.