Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
motivated by something other than this litigation. Moreover, the capital infrastructure for collecting the tolls has been dismantled, hardly the behavior of a defendant that intended to return to its old ways upon dismissal of a case. In short, we have little cause to believe that the legislature repealed the tolls in order to immunize its actions from judicial review, and the voluntary cessation exception does not apply to save the mooted claims. B. Restitution Strictly speaking, the Town’s restitution claim may not be moot, unlike its claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. It is settled law that a claim for monetary relief, including restitution, may survive events that moot injunctive or declaratory relief. See N.L.R.B. v. Me. Caterers, Inc., 732 F.2d 689, 691 (1st Cir.1984) ; see also Demelo v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 727
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
B. holding that a motion to terminate a consent decree was moot because the challenged provisions of the decree had expired
C. holding that a claim is not moot where there is a viable damages claim
D. holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged
E. holding that claim for cost reimbursement and making employees whole is not moot despite the defendant having ceased the challenged practice
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.