Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that a plaintiff may ultimately lose his ease is not in itself a sufficient justification for the assessment of fees.” Id. at 986 (quoting Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14, 101 S.Ct. 173, 178, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980)). The district court declined to find the complaint “meritless for purposes of § 1988 fees.” R. 304 at 11. As we have made clear in the sanctions discussion above, this is not a case in which the attorneys and parties have filed clearly wasteful or frivolous papers. Nor have they conducted an insufficient legal and factual investigation before filing meritless claims. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys’ fees pursuant to § 1988. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C., 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S.Ct. 694, 700, 54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978) ; Munson v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Directors,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court may award attorneys fees in a successful lmrda action
B. holding a district court may in its discretion award attorneys fees upon a finding that plaintiffs action was frivolous unreasonable or without foundation even though not brought in subjective bad faith
C. holding that a finding of plaintiffs bad faith is not a prerequisite to the trial courts exercise of discretion to award fees
D. holding that courts may award prevailing title vii defendant attorney fees upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was frivolous unreasonable or without foundation even though not brought in subjective bad faith and fees also may be awarded if plaintiff continued to litigate after its action clearly became frivolous unreasonable or without foundation
E. holding that a district court may award attorneys fees while the merits are on appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.