Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in domestic law. Although a dismissal of the family court action certainly may have an effect on whether Stone pursues the circuit court action against Thompson, the two actions are completely separate. Therefore, the family court’s order, which retains subject matter jurisdiction over this case, does not deprive Thompson of a mode of trial to which she may speculatively be entitled to as a matter of right in another case. See Flagstar Corp., 341 S.C. at 72, 533 S.E.2d at 333 (stating the traditional analysis of subsection (2) is whether “a party is erroneously denied a trial by jury in a law case, or is erroneously required to proceed before a jury in an equity case”); see also, e.g., Woodard v. Westvaco Corp., 319 S.C. 240, 242-43, 243 n.2, 460 S.E.2d 392, 393-94, 394 n.2 (1995) , overruled on other grounds by Sabb v. S.C.
```
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 a decision denying a motion to dismiss an action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction is not appealable
C. holding that an order denying a motion to vacate a  1782 order and denying a motion to quash the subpoena was immediately appealable
D. 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
E. holding an order allowing a motion under rule 60b is not immediately appealable because it is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.