Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
would not shock the conscience. Accordingly, we hold that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar the plaintiffs’ substantive due process theory. VI. The defendants finally argue that since the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests federal courts of jurisdiction to order relief that prevents the enforcement of an order previously entered by a state court, Rooker-Feldman precludes the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain an injunction against the closure of Desi’s and further harassment by the defendants. We disagree. The plaintiffs’ request for an injunction against the closure of Desi’s pursuant to the state court’s order is moot, as the state court’s injunction has expired and Desi’s has resumed operations. See, e.g., Orion Sales v. Emerson Radio Corp., 148 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir.1998) ; Hodges v. Schlinkert Sports Assocs., 89 F.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case
B. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction
C. holding that when the district court applies the wrong preliminary injunction standard this court may review the record to determine whether the injunction is justified
D. holding that where a noncompetition clause in a contract had expired by its own terms the plaintiffs appeal from the district courts denial of the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction enforcing the clause was moot
E. holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.