Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the bill she sent had a tendency to expose Lieberman to “hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,” or injury in her occupation. Copp v. Paxton, 45 Cal.App.4th 829, 839, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 831 (1996). Lieberman failed to demonstrate any such defamatory meaning, and the allegedly inaccurate statement as to the amount of the bill thus cannot sustain a slander claim. Lieberman’s other two examples of “explicit” factual assertions made by Fieger are equally unavailing because they constitute protected opinion. Fieger’s statement that the criminal court “laughed at her and gave her zero” merely offers a hyperbolic and colorful description of the actual outcome: the court denied the request for expert witness fees. See Ferlauto v. Hamsher, 74 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 843 (1999) . In Lieberman’s ease, as in Ferlauto,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a motion to continue a hearing on a postjudgment motion was ineffective to extend the period for the trial court to rule on the motion absent the express consent of the parties
B. holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified
C. holding that statements that the judge laughed at their motion and thought their motion was a joke merely provided colorful descriptions of the incontestable fact that the court indeed denied the motion
D. holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied
E. holding that a district court judge to whom a case had been reassigned could grant the defendants motion for summary judgment after the previous judge had denied the motion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.