Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
374 U.S. at 20, 83 S.Ct. 1646); Red Star Towing, 552 F.Supp. at 371 (“[Fitzgerald] established that a litigant in admiralty is not entitled as a matter of right to a non-jury trial ....”) Furthermore, when non-jury admiralty claims are joined with legal claims carrying a jury right, the constitutional right to a jury should prevail. See Mayer v. Cornell Univ., 909 F.Supp. 81, 85 (N.D.N.Y.1995) (stating “general rule” that “when admiralty claims are joined with claims which carry the right to a jury, the right to a jury prevails”); In re Complaint of Berkley Curtis Bay Co., 569 F.Supp. 1491, 1494 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (“[W]here the nonjury’ admiralty tradition and a plaintiffs jury right conflict, the jury right must prevail.”); Parsell v. Shell Oil Co., 421 F.Supp. 1275, 1276-77 (D.Conn.1976) ; see also 8 Moore’s Federal Practice § 38.32
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a demand for a trial by jury is inconsistent with an intent to proceed in admiralty
B. holding in action involving single claim that if claim sounded only in admiralty there would be no right to a jury trial but if federal question was present as a separate and independent basis for federal jurisdiction then the jury demand must be honored
C. recognizing that parties had right to trial by jury in trespass action but holding that parties waived that right under cr 3804 by not filing a demand for a jury trial
D. holding district court could not declare jury advisory in action triable of right by a jury and even if no right to jury trial existed in case it would be abuse of discretion to declare jury advisory after both sides rested but before jury was instructed
E. holding that under rule 38e there is no right to a trial by jury if plaintiff chooses to identify his claim as admiralty or maritime as permitted by rule 9h
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.