Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
applied the relevant substantive law. Id. The grant of summary judgment in this case is reviewed in light of the quite summary procedural requirements provided by the statutory law of civil forfeitures. United States v. One 56-Foot Motor Yacht Named the Tahuna, 702 F.2d 1276, 1281 (9th Cir.1983). 3 . Ordinarily, collateral estoppel is an affirmative defense that must be raised by the party seeking to use it, or else it is waived. See, e.g., Kern Oil & Ref. Co. v. Tenneco Oil Co., 840 F.2d 730, 735 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 948, 109 S.Ct. 378, 102 L.Ed.2d 367 (1988). The government did not brief the issue in this case; however, we raise it sua sponte in order to affirm the district court’s decision. See Russell v. SunAmerica Sec., Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th Cir.1992) . 4 . The preclusive effect of a state court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error
B. holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal
C. holding that district courts sua sponte grant of summary judgment to nonmoving party is an accepted method of expediting litigation
D. recognizing that in the interest of judicial economy res judicata may properly be raised by a district court sua sponte particularly where both actions are brought in the courts of the same district
E. holding that a court can raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte in order to affirm a grant of summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.