Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a class action, the question is not whether the plaintiff or plaintiffs have stated a cause of action or will prevail on the merits, but rather whether the requirements of [the procedural rule governing class actions] are met.” (quoting Miller v. Mackey Int’l, 452 F.2d 424 (5th Cir.1971))). 12 .See Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex.1993) ("An opinion issued in a case brought by a party without standing is advisory because rather than remedying an actual or imminent harm, the judgment addresses only a hypothetical injury.”). 13 . See id. 14 . E.g. Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 443-445 (Tex.1989). 15 . 135 S.W.3d 657, 679 (Tex.2004) (footnote omitted). Cf. Collins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 894 So.2d 988 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2004) . 16 . See, e.g., Martinez v. Second Injury
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that erisa preempts a plaintiffs claims for violation of the state insurance code and consumer protection act
B. holding that the plaintiffs stated a claim for conspiracy because they alleged an actionable tort
C. holding that an insurers violation of covenant of good faith and fair dealing was actionable under the consumer protection act
D. holding that plaintiffs complaint that the value of her car was less because it was equipped with gen3 seatbelt buckles is actionable under the state consumer protection law even though the alleged defect has never manifest itself in an emergency or caused damages
E. holding on habeas review that defendant was not in custody for miranda purposes and reciting among other facts that defendant was transported to a police station for questioning in an unmarked police car which was not equipped with a shield inside the car
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.