Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a complaint involving an indispensable party). As a result, the Court dismisses without prejudice plaintiffs’ claims under the TCA related to Verizon’s alleged wrongdoing. See generally Direct Energy Marketing Ltd. v. Duke/Louis Dreyfus LLC, 50 Fed.Appx. 469, 473 (2d Cir.2002) (noting that the proper procedure is to dismiss the claims without prejudice to allow plaintiff to renew its claims in another tribunal). (vi) Extensive Delay, Shifting Rules and Negligence In their final mash of TCA claims, plaintiffs paint a tale of egregious delay, deliberately shifting regulatory sands and gross administrative negligence. These factors, plaintiffs argue, created the types of barriers to entry that the TCA was intended to prevent. The City protests that the d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir.2001) . Here, plaintiffs allege both a six to eight
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no retroactive application
B. holding retroactive application
C. recognizing district court application of the same rule
D. holding that the combination of lengthy application process burdensome application and unfettered discretion violates the tca
E. holding that there is no rational reason for the retroactive application of 80173 and the prospective application of 833
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.