Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(N.D.1975). In addition, our court previously considered N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(5), the very subsection cited by the Board, explicitly concluding the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction does not involve the merits of a claim. Schaff v. Kennelly, 69 N.W.2d 777, 779-80 (N.D.1955). Rather the denial of a motion to dismiss, like the denial of a motion for summary judgment, is “merely interlocutory and, leaving the case pending for trial, it decides nothing, except that the parties may proceed with the case.” Rude v. Letnes, 154 N.W. 2d 380, 381(N.D.1967). See also Imperial Oil of North Dakota v. Hanson, 510 N.W.2d 598, 601 (N.D.1994) (noting “[e]ven a jurisdictional reason does not normally warrant an intermediate appeal”); Newman v. Hjelle, 133 N.W.2d 549, 554 (N.D.1965) ; Beresina Sch. Dist. No. 23 v. Steinwandt, 60
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an order denying a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory and not appealable
B. holding an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable because it does not fall into one of the enumerated categories of section 143330 and such order does not finally determine anything
C. holding that a denial of a 12b2 motion for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable
D. holding that immediate right to appeal lies from denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
E. holding a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.