Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Contract suits filed in state courts alleging a violation of a collective bargaining agreement have long since fallen under the scope of § 301. See Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Lincoln Mills of Ala., 353 U.S. 448, 456-57, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957) (interpreting § 301 as a congressional mandate to the federal courts to create a body of federal common law to handle labor contract disputes); Local 17k, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 102-03, 82 S.Ct. 571, 7 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962) (<HOLDING>). For this reason, “[a] state rule that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that any suit filed in state court alleging violations of a provision of a labor contract must be brought under  301 and be resolved by federal law (B) holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur (C) holding state immune from suit brought in state court (D) holding that if the state law claim can be resolved without interpreting the agreement the claim is independent for  301 preemption purposes (E) holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law
Output (English): holding that state court with jurisdiction over  301 claim should have applied federal labor law rather than state contract law