Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
different grounds than those relied upon by the district court, and AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND Shankle’s case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1 . Circuit City reserved the right to modify the rules of the arbitration agreement, and it has modified one of the rules at issue in the present case. This modification is discussed in section III.D. infra. 2 . Even though Morrison’s case has been arbitrated, the claims she raises in this appeal are not moot because this court could still grant effectual relief in the present case, if we were to determine that the arbitration agreement was in fact unenforceable and thus arbitration should never have taken place. Cf. Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) . As discussed infra, however, we ultimately
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even though the appeal was not moot because effective relief was possible it was inequitable to require that the debtors counsel disgorge fees and costs awarded by the bankruptcy court
B. holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief
C. holding that appeal of irs summons was not moot even though subject of summons had already turned over the evidence at issue because court could still order some partial relief
D. holding that challenge to oneyear order for protection was not moot even though it had expired
E. holding appeal moot on this basis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.