Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
403, 406 (9th Cir.1993)). WCSPA appeals from the denial of its motion to intervene in a case that the district court has since decided, through the Order on Remedy and the subsequent final judgment, from which neither party has appealed. Because the underlying litigation is over, we cannot grant WCSPA any “effective relief’ by allowing it to intervene now. The appeal is therefore moot. See United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir.1981) (dismissing as moot an appeal of a denial of a motion to intervene where the underlying litigation was voluntarily dismissed) (“Since there is no longer any action in which appellants can intervene, judicial consideration of the [intervention] question would be fruitless.”); cf. Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1109 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2005) . The “capable of repetition, yet evading
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the appellate court should have construed the notice of appeal from the denial of a motion to vacate the judgment as an attempt to appeal from the underlying judgment
B. holding that appellate court had jurisdiction over claimants appeal from the denial of his motion for reconsideration separable from underlying judgment despite claimants failure to appeal from the underlying judgment because the reconsideration motion raised changes in the relevant medical criteria
C. holding that appeal from denial of rule 60b motion raised for review only the district courts order of denial and not the underlying judgment itself
D. holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment
E. holding that entry of judgment in the underlying litigation does not moot an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene if one of the parties keeps the underlying litigation live by pursuing an appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.