Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
See Def.’s Opp’n at 11. Consequently, Monster contends that Zuckman’s claims for injunctive relief satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. See id. The parties dispute whether the cost of relief should be measured from the perspective of the plaintiff or defendant. Whatever perspective is used, they also disagree as to how the cost should be apportioned here given the claims on behalf of the general public. The Court need not resolve these issues, however, because Monster’s claims about the costs are too speculative to serve as the basis for determining the amount in controversy. Courts have found that general assertions that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed $75,000 are too speculative to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Nat’l Consumers League, 680 F.Supp.2d at 140 ; Wexler v. United Air Lines, Inc., 496
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where plaintiff has set forth in the complaint a specific request for damages and attorneys fees that on its face is an amount less than the jurisdictional minimum the defendant must prove to a legal certainty that plaintiffs claim must exceed 75000
B. holding that the stipulation included in the plaintiffs petitionthat the maximum amount of damages sought or that would be accepted wpuld not exceed 75000 exclusive of costs and interest bound the plaintiff and was sufficient to defeat diversity jurisdiction
C. holding that a court may award injunctive relief against a state officer
D. holding that in order to establish standing the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling must not be too speculative
E. holding that defendants claim that the cost of injunctive relief would exceed 75000 was too speculative
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.