With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3722 (“Generally the federal law is apparent on the face of the complaint; but sometimes the plaintiff will characterize his necessarily federal cause of action solely in state law terms. In these situations the federal removal court will look beyond the letter of the complaint to the substance of the claim in order to assert jurisdiction.”). Therefore, in the proper case, the Court may deem a federal question to exist despite the lack of any direct assertion of a violation of federal law in the original pleading filed in state court. The proper case, however, exists only where it is not possible to bring the action asserted by the Plaintiff in state court. Cf. Bartholet v. Reishauer A.G. (Zurich), 953 F.2d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Vantine v. Elkhart Brass Mfg. Co., Inc., 762

A: holding that state common law causes of action asserting improper processing of a claim for benefits under an employee benefit plan are removable to federal court
B: holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted
C: holding a state court complaint alleging a common law breach of contract action to be in fact a claim under erisa and thus removable as a federal question
D: holding that the plaintiffs state common law causes of actions for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as a statutory cause of action for unfair insurance practices under the california insurance code were preempted by erisa
C.