Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that state courts should generally follow the twists and turns in federal law would be ironic in light of the congressional intent to allow, if not encourage, state experimentation. G. A Note on Law of the Case, Stare Decisis, and Dictum. If one looks through our ICRA cases, federal cases are often simply cited for propositions of law without substantive discussion. Often times in this setting, we were simply restating legal principles that the parties were not contesting in the case. When a legal principle is embraced by the parties by agreement and is not contested on appeal, the court’s subsequent recitation of the legal principle is not a holding in the case that was a product of an adversary proceeding. See Berger v. Gen. United Grp., Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630, 635 (Iowa 1978) ; see also United States v. Hemingway, 734 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule and all its attendant meanings and limitations expressed in previous case law would be assumed into law of the case doctrine
B. holding that because plaintiffs assumed delaware law was properly pled and proven by defendants we would consider delaware law but stressed that this case was not precedent for ignoring our rules of pleading and proof on foreign law
C. holding that a party relying on foreign law must plead and prove it and partys failure to do so entitles court to assume that foreign law is the same as forum law
D. holding that delaware law controlled delaware corporations capacity to sue or be sued
E. holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.