Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is directed exclusively at whether notice was given by the uncertified, putative class. Because there is no case or controversy between the Oil Companies and the named appellants over this issue, the district court had no authority to reach this issue before ruling on certification. Nevertheless, despite this apparent flaw in the district court’s order, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that we lack the authority to vacate the ruling because there is no appealable order before us. 1 . Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992); Henderson v. Stalder, 287 F.3d 374, 384 (5th Cir.2002). 2 . Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. 3 . Id. 4 . Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. 6 . See Pederson v. La. State Univ., 213 F.3d 858, 874 (5th Cir.2000) ; see also Scott v. Maggio, 695 F.2d 916,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that justiciability must be analyzed separately on the issues of money damages and the propriety of equitable relief
B. holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief
C. holding that money damages do not qualify as equitable relief within the meaning of  1132a3
D. holding that a jury trial was not required when the money demand although specific was incidental and ancillary to the equitable relief requested and would ripen only if equitable relief were granted
E. holding that exhaustion is required under the plra even if the plaintiff seeks only money damages and money damages are not available as relief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.