Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980), cited in Envtl. Protection Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 257 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.2001). An exception to this general rule permits the prevailing party to cross-appeal from a summary judgment if “the [collateral] adverse ruling can serve as the basis for collateral estoppel in subsequent litigation.” Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles, 167 F.3d 514, 520 (9th Cir.1999). In this case, however, the determinations that Federal seeks to cross appeal will not have collateral estoppel effect in subsequent litigation because they were immaterial to the' judgment below. Envtl. Protection Info. Ctr., 257 F.3d at 1076. Moreover, Federal cannot appeal the judgment under Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U.S. 241, 59 S.Ct. 860, 83 L.Ed. 1263 (1939) . The judgment in favor of Federal dismissed
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there can be only one final appealable order
B. holding that a party can seek reformation of a favorable decree that discusses issues immaterial to the final outcome
C. holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party
D. holding that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and all doubts are resolved against the moving party
E. holding that it need not reach a decision on whether a party could prevail under buckhannon in the absence of a consent decree or a final judgment on the merits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.