Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
very issue, but the district court denied that intervention. Enterprise chose not to appeal that decision. Thus, the validity of Landmark's prejudgment attachment never was in issue in the Landmark lawsuit. 2 . We have no doubt that the validity of Landmark's prejudgment attachment would be an issue in a priority dispute between Landmark and Enterprise. Nevertheless, neither the Enterprise lawsuit nor the Landmark lawsuit is a priority dispute involving the validity of a prejudgment attachment. 3 . Landmark opposed the district court's consolidation below. Landmark, however, could not appeal the consolidation because the district court held in favor of Landmark on the merits. See Public Serv. Comm'n v. Brashear Freight Lines, 306 U.S. 204, 206, 59 S.Ct. 480, 481, 83 L.Ed. 608 (1939) . Landmark, however, has raised this issue as a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding neither party was prevailing party where appeal and crossappeal were dismissed
B. holding that a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action
C. holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal
D. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
E. holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.