Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
their allegation that the defendants were required to comply with the unsigned May 31, 2000 IEP, rather than the previous, signed February 3, 2000 IEP. At the time the plaintiffs filed this complaint, the California superior court had issued a ruling enforcing the February 3 rather than the May 31 IEP. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the California court of appeal and at the same time filed this action. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because, at the time the plaintiffs’ complaint was filed, the district court could not find in their favor on any of their claims without determining that the California superior court’s decision enforcing the February 3 IEP was wrong. Doe v. Napolitano, 252 F.3d 1026, 1030 (9th Cir.2001) . Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine justified
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the rookerfeldman doctrine forecloses federal jurisdiction when a decision in favor of a federal litigant would wholly undermine the state courts ruling
B. holding that rookerfeldman bars subject matter jurisdiction where but for the statecourt judgment the plaintiff would have no claim
C. holding rookerfeldman inapplicable where the district court could and did find that the plaintiffs constitutional claims had merit without also finding that the state court erred
D. holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff
E. holding that federal district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear case notwithstanding rookerfeldman doctrine where plaintiff filed federal suit while certiorari petition to new mexico supreme court was pending in similar state court action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.