Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. However, ‘[n]ot every order has the requisite element of finality that can trigger the operation of Rule 51(b).’ Goldome Credit Corp. v. Player, 869 So.2d 1146, 1147 (Ala.Civ.App.2003) (emphasis added). A claim is not eligible for Rule 54(b) certification unless it has been completely resolved by the judgment. “.... ‘[T]he trial court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction upon this [Cjourt through directing entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) if the judgment is not otherwise “final.” ’ Robinson v. Computer Servicenters, Inc., 360 So.2d 299, 302 (Ala.1978).” Rather than appealing from the trial court’s interlocutory order, Deakle should have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Fort James Operating Co., 905 So.2d 836 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) . However, for the reasons explained in Part I
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate mechanism for challenging a trial courts grant of leave to amend a complaint
B. holding the district court is not required to grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint sua sponte when the plaintiff who is represented by counsel never filed a motion to amend nor requested leave to amend before the district court
C. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances
D. holding that denial of leave to amend was appropriate because the plaintiff sought to amend his complaint two years after filing his complaint  on the eve of trial when discovery was complete
E. holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.