Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
2001, more than two months after their requests for hearings were made. On July 11, 2001, the Henrys and Skarphol moved the ALJ to dismiss the administrative actions against them based on the Commissioner’s failure to abide by the time limits set forth in N.D.C.C. § 10-04-12(2). The ALJ de nied the motions to dismiss and the Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s decision. The Henrys and Skarphol appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Commissioner’s order. On appeal to this Court, the Henrys and Skarphol contend the administrative actions against them should be dismissed because the Commissioner violated N.D.C.C. § 10-04-12(2) by faffing to set the hearings within 30 days of their requests. ' II [¶ 5] Before we consider the merits of an appeal, we must have jurisdiction. Nodak M 6) . [¶ 9] In line with this reasoning, this Court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
B. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
C. holding that a rehearing order is interlocutory and not appealable
D. holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and not immediately appealable
E. holding that an order was interlocutory in nature despite the trial courts certification of the order as a final appealable judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.