Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
P.3d 170, 177 (Okla.2007). Stewart involved an action for damages for personal injuries caused when the driver-employee of a tractor-trailer rear-ended the Stewarts’ vehicle. 241 F.Supp.2d at 1218. Stewart, relying on Marrier, sued the driver and the commercial carrier that employed the driver, asserting a private cause of action under section 14704(a)(2). Id. at 1219. The Stewart court respectfully disagreed with the reasoning in Marrier. Finding the language in section 14704(a)(2) “ambiguous and inconsistent with other language in the statute,” the federal district court looked “to the legislative history for guidance in interpreting the statute.” Id. The Stewart court relied, in part, on Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. New Prime, Inc., 192 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir.1999) . Stewart, 241 F.Supp.2d at 1221. In
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that section 14704a2 authorizes private action for damages and injunctive relief to remedy at least some violations of the motor carrier act and its implementing regulations
B. holding that  1132a3b authorizes the award of appropriate equitable relief to a beneficiary for violations of erisa
C. holding that liquidated damages provision did not provide adequate remedy at law or prevent injunctive relief
D. holding that section 14704a authorizes private actions for damages  to remedy at least some violations of the motor carrier act
E. recognizing that implicit in language of  9 allowing civil action for damages or injunctive relief or both was a plain legislative intent to afford victims of discrimination the legal remedy of compensatory damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.