Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
statute, a party may not secure a declaration of its statutory rights by seeking relief under the DJA. This general principle is implied by the Court’s decision in In re Resolution of State Comm. of Investigation, supra, 108 N.J. at 46, 527 A.2d 851. The Court declined to render a declaratory judgment on the question whether the State Commission on Investigation (SCI) unlawfully disclosed information about the plaintiffs. The Court held that plaintiffs lacked a private right of action to secure injunctive relief against the SCI arising out of the alleged disclosures. Ibid. (“[0]ur decision that the plaintiffs may not obtain the injunctive relief they sought undermines their need for a declaratory judgment.”); see also In re A.N., 430 N.J.Super. 235, 244-45, 63 A.3d 764 (App.Div.2013) ; Med. Soc. of N.J. v. AmeriHealth HMO, Inc.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending
B. holding that the chancery division lacked jurisdiction under njsa 2a1655 to determine medicaid eligibility where the authority to do so was vested in the division of medical assistance and health services
C. holding res judicata applied to improper property division before holding parties were bound by their division agreement
D. holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division
E. holding that a transfer was a demotion where there was testimony that few people transferred voluntarily from jobs in the plaintiffs prior division to jobs in the plaintiffs new division  everybody viewed a transfer from the plaintiffs new division to the prior division as a promotion and the two departments had different seniority systems
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.