Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in the first place. If [it] prevails], the only appropriate remedy is a declaration that the [Ordinance] is invalid and an injunction forbidding its enforcement.” Ezell, 651 F.3d at 699 n. 10 (emphasis in original). Waterfront cites to no case awarding anything other than injunctive relief to a plaintiff who asserts that it was harmed by the mere enactment of a zoning law, where the plaintiff has not applied for a permit. See also Rumber v. District of Columbia, 595 F.3d 1298, 1300 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.2010) (claim for compensatory damages did not save from mootness an action to enjoin eminent domain against a property because “no property ha[d] been taken from [the] plaintiffs”); Angino v. VanWagner, No. 1:CV-05-1748, 2009 WL 2859041, at *14-15 (M.D.Pa. Sept. 3, 2009) (Vanaskie, J.) . Limiting the available remedy to an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative
B. holding that a  1983 claim for damages was not prohibited by claim preclusion because the plaintiff could not have sought damages in his prior article 78 proceeding arising out of the same facts
C. holding such damages available where local law silent on issue speculative nature of damages does not preclude recovery
D. holding that damages were not available to a plaintiff who challenged an ordinance under a due process theory because the plaintiff had not sought a permit and therefore any claim for damages was purely speculative
E. holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.