Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), thereby “fulfilling their duties to safeguard the future of the Tree Boa.” Tree Boa, 918 F.Supp. at 902. Alternatively, Judge Finch found that he was compelled to dismiss plaintiffs’ ESA claims with respect to the Tree Boa for failure to provide proper notice to the Secretary and the alleged violator as required by 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A). Judge Finch did not address the merits of plaintiffs’ claims brought pursuant to § 9. C.Alternative Holdings Because Judge Finch determined that he did not have the power to hear plaintiffs’ ESA claims, any findings made with respect to the merit of those claims are not essential to the judgement and cannot support the application of collateral estoppel. See Stebbins v. Keystone Ins. Co., 481 F.2d 501, 508 (D.C.Cir.1973) ; Bokunewicz v. Purolator Products, Inc., 907
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the apprendi decision is not applicable on collateral review
B. holding that collateral estoppel is not applicable to finding against plaintiff on merits where court also held that plaintiff lacked standing
C. holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes
D. holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
E. holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.