Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the law to the undisputed facts. In re Bruce Terminix Co., 988 S.W.2d 702, 703-04 (Tex.1998) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Barnes, 127 S.W.3d at 846. Mandamus is generally proper if a trial court acts without jurisdiction. Barnes, 127 S.W.3d at 846 (citing In re Sw. Bell, 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex.2000); In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 571 (Tex.1998)). The existence or absence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Barnes, 127 S.W.3d at 846. Despite the general requirement that a party seeking relief by mandamus must establish he has no adequate remedy by appeal, such is not the case when the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In re Office of Attorney Gen. of Tex., 264 S.W.3d 800, 805 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding) ; see In re Oates, 104 S.W.3d 571, 575
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a party who is erroneously deprived of the benefits of an arbitration contract under the federal arbitration act is without adequate remedy by appeal and entitled to mandamus relief
B. holding that mandamus is an appropriate remedy because the trial courts issuance of temporary orders is not subject to interlocutory appeal
C. holding that upon commencement of the election process mandamus will not lie to prevent the inclusion of a candidate on the official ballot because by that time the case has become moot
D. holding mandamus will lie to prevent trial court from exercising jurisdiction it does not have even if there is adequate remedy by appeal
E. holding that mandamus will issue to reverse a trial courts ruling on a discovery issue only 1 where there is a showing that the trial court clearly exceeded its discretion and 2 where the aggrieved party does not have an adequate remedy by ordinary appeal the petitioner has an affirmative burden to prove the existence of each of these conditions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.