Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
To datfe, however, Pacleb has not actually received complete relief on those claims. Thosé claims, therefore, are not now moot. In addition, because “a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunit er of judgment, whereas Allstate purported to hold its Rule 68 offer open. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald, however, Allstate has not continued to press that argument, and properly so. Under Campbell-Ewald, the key question is whether an offer has been accepted, regardless of whether it has lapsed or remains on the table. See Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.Ct. at 666 ("We hold today, in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.” (emphasis added)); id. at 672 . 3 . We grant Allstate’s motion to supplement
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an unaccepted rule 68 offer does not moot a claim
B. holding that while rule 68 does not explicitly require that an offer of settlement under that rule be made in writing its requirement that the offer be served upon the adverse party implies as much
C. recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment
D. holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell
E. holding an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiffs case emphasis added
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.