Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and plaintiffs believe AIG should reimburse the. United States for those payments: “AIG, et al.” is DEMANDED to REIMBURSE “the Government, Social Security Department” for “all” past paid Social Security Disability Payments made (4/28/1999-present) which [must be] Funded “out-of AIG, et al. legitimately owned Asset’s” — “AIG, et al.” is the cause in fact of said Disability (i.e„ Life-Altering Injuries) and therefore,' Responsible As A Matter of LAW. Regardless, plaintiffs may not bring a social security claim in this court. The Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under the Social Security Act. See Addams-More v. United States, 81 Fed.Cl. 312, 315, aff'd, 296 Fed.Appx. 45 (Fed.Cir.2008) (citing Marcus v. United States, 909 F.2d 1470, 1471 (Fed.Cir.1990) ). The statute at 42 U.S.C, § 405(g) (2012)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over claim for interim social security benefits during pendency of administrative proceedings
B. holding that the tucker act grants the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction to grant nonmonetary relief in connection with contractor claims including claims requesting an interpretation of contract terms
C. holding that the tucker act gives the united states court of federal claims jurisdiction over cda claims only when a decision of the contracting officer has been issued under section 6 of the cda 
D. holding that the tucker act does not provide independent jurisdiction over claims for injunctive relief in contractual dispute cases
E. holding that the claims court has no jurisdiction under the tucker act over claims to social security benefits
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.