Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that SEIU has abandoned this claim. Additionally, the preliminary injunction was issued by the district court pursuant to section 301(a). Thus, our resolution of the jurisdictional issue has relevance to the ongoing litigation. Moreover, and essential to our determination here, in the preliminary injunction the district court explicitly preserved a portion of the TRO as still effective after issuance of the injunction. The preliminary injunction states, “all defendants in this action remain subject to paragraph three of the TRO and subsequent orders regarding the imaging of electronic devices.” (Order Granting In Part Mot. For Prelim. Inj. at 17). Thus it seems the TRO has not expired and remains enforceable. Compare Am. Tunaboat Ass’n v. Brown, 67 F.3d 1404, 1407 (9th Cir.1995) , with Negrete, 523 F.3d at 1098 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding an appeal of injunction moot where the injunction expired three months before the appellate court heard arguments in the case
C. holding plaintiffs appeal of the denial of a preliminary injunction moot where defendants directive no longer in effect
D. holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction
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.