Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc). We must determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact such that a trial is necessary, and whether the district court properly applied the substantive law. See id. While we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, a mere scintilla of evidence or some “metaphysical doubt as to material facts” will not suffice to defeat summary judgment. See Brinson v. Linda Rose Joint Venture, 53 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir.1995). Finally, we have jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of Scribner’s summary judgment motion as well as its grant of summary judgment to World-Com. See, e.g., Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Beazer Materials & Servs. Inc., 973 F.2d 688, 693-94 (9th Cir.1992) . B. The Meaning of the Word “Cause” We must
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that party may not appeal summary judgment in favor of opponent when grounds opposing summary judgment asserted on appeal were not raised before trial court
B. holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion
C. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court
D. holding that a grant of summary judgment in favor of one party creates a final judgment allowing appellate review of denial of opposing partys summary judgment motion
E. holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.