Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Rule of. Civil Procedure 23, Gomez held Pitts was not clearly irreconcilable with Genesis Healthcare. See id. Although Genesis Healthcare “undermined some of the reasoning employed in Pitts ..,, courts have universally concluded that the Genesis discussion does not apply to class actions.” Id. at 875. “In fact, Genesis itself emphasizes that ‘Rule 23 [class] actions are fun-, damentally different from collective actions under the FLSA.’ ” Id. at 875-76 (alteration in original) (quoting Genesis Healthcare, 133 S.Ct. at 1529). Because Gomez’s holding that Pitts is not clearly irreconcilable with Genesis Healthcare is hot itself clearly irreconcilable with intervening Supreme Court authority, we are bound by Gomez. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892-93 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) . Accordingly, Pitts remains the law of this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that when intervening supreme court case law is clearly irreconcilable with a prior circuit decision a panel of this court is bound by the later and controlling authority and should reject the prior circuit opinion
B. holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority
C. holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
D. holding that a three judge panel is not bound by prior circuit precedent if an intervening decision of a higher authority undercuts the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
E. holding that a three judge panel is free to reexamine the holding of a prior panel when the supreme court has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.