Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
constitutional rights, the specific relief which they presently request cannot be granted. We have already determined that the district court is without jurisdiction to review the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision that Guess’ license was properly revoked. Because of this decision, the relief the Patients seek, homeopathic care from Guess, cannot be given. In limiting their prayer for relief to an injunction against the Board’s revocation of Guess’ medical license, to the extent of the relief requested, the Patients become “a litigating agent of a person who was a party to a prior action_” Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4449 n. 7 (1981) (citing St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 v. Herald Co., 402 F.2d 553 (8th Cir.1968) ). The Patients effectively seek to relitigate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding union members state law claims for defamation against union preempted
B. holding that a union may not relitigate an action for severance pay which the employees previously lost even though the union facially asserts a new theory of recovery and was not involved in the initial action
C. holding that a rico action by union members was properly dismissed where any financial improprieties occurred with union funds and directly injured solely the union
D. recognizing that union members interests are adequately represented by the union
E. holding that a union officials comments may be used to infer the object of union activity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.