Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
must provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing to the property owner, see Systems Contractors Corp. v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd., 148 F.3d 571, 575-76 (5th Cir.1998) (applying Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)), for “[w]hen protected interests are implicated, the right to some kind of prior hearing is paramount,” Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). The “root requirement” of due process is “that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest.” McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dept. of Bus. Regulation of Fla., 496 U.S. 18, 37, 110 S.Ct. 2238, 110 L.Ed.2d 17 (1990) (quoting Cleveland Bd. of Educ. 58 (7th Cir.1997) . Here, the state provides unsuccessful bidders
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state court injunction was an adequate predeprivation remedy in a condemnation case where the property owner received notice 30 days before the demolition and could file an injunction that automatically halted any demolition plans by the city
B. holding that the relevant inquiry when assessing irreparable injury is whether there is an adequate remedy in the absence of an injunction
C. holding that the failure of the applicant to file a bond before the issuance of the temporary injunction renders the injunction void ab initio
D. holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case
E. holding that an injunction is an extraordinary remedy
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.