With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the United States, 497 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.2007). In that case, the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”) brought a state-law action against the administrator of a federal employees’ benefit plan alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation in connection with partial reimbursement of claims for medical treatment. The administrator removed the suit to federal district court. Id. at 974. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that Cedars-Sinai’s claims were preempted by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”), 5 U.S.C. § 8901. FEHBA and ERISA are different federal statutes, but their preemption provisions are analytically similar. See, e.g., Botsford v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mont., Inc., 314 F.3d 390, 393-94 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, our opinion in Cedars-Sinai was based

A: holding removal and preemption are distinct concepts erisa preemption does not allow removal unless complete preemption exists
B: holding that fehbas complete preemption provision closely resembles erisas express preemption provision and precedent interpreting the erisa provision thus provides authority for cases involving the fehba provision
C: holding that  502a may serve as an independent basis for preemption where  514a the blanket erisa preemption provision is inapplicable
D: holding that defendants testimony that he did not see a provision in the agreement because the plaintiffcounterparty failed to direct him to the provision was insufficient as a matter of law to establish fraud and defendant was therefore bound to the terms of the provision
B.