Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
service. Process Opp’n 19. Fujitsu requests that the Court order service on Defendants’ U.S. counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3). Id. Both D-Link Corp. and ZyXEL Corp. oppose this request. Process Reply 6-7. “[Sjervice of process under Rule 4(f)(3) is neither a last resort’ nor extraordinary relief.’ It is merely one means among several which enables service of process on an international defendant.” Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir.2002) (internal citation omitted). “‘Under Rule 4(f)(3), federal courts have discretionary authority to direct service by other means not prohibited by international agreements.’ ” Nuance Commc’ns, 626 F.3d at 1239 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3)); see also Rio Properties, 284 F.3d at 1016 . Furthermore, “The choice between dismissal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the decision whether to apply the exhaustion requirement in an erisa case is committed to the district courts sound discretion but that the district court abused its discretion by not dismissing the suit for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
B. holding the task of determining when the particularities and necessities of a given case require alternate service of process under rule 4f3 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court
C. holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the court
D. holding that the decision to transfer rests within the sound discretion of the district court
E. holding that whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies within the sound discretion of the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.