Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
eventually be dismissed if they fail to conform to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 after the court gives the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. See id. 2 . The plaintiffs typed the heading "Motion for a TRO” on their pleading but crossed it out before filing the document and indicated that they would file a separate motion for a temporary restraining order on the next day. But even if the court had jurisdiction to consider the motion for a temporary restraining order and treated the original pleading as a motion for the restraining order, the court would deny the motion because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and have not demonstrated irreparable harm. See Davenport v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 361 (D.C.Cir.1999) . Further, it appears that the plaintiffs have
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the movant had to establish both of the first two factors ie likelihood of success and irreparable harm to receive a preliminary injunction
B. holding that a court may issue injunctive relief only when the movant demonstrates four factors substantial likelihood of success on the merits irreparable harm no substantial injury to the other party and furtherance of the public interest
C. holding that even when likelihood of success has been established the absence of irreparable injury standing alone makes preliminary injunctive relief improper
D. holding that injunctive relief may be warranted where there is a particularly strong likelihood of success on the merits even if there is a relatively slight showing of irreparable injury
E. holding that a movant that clearly establishes likelihood of success on the merits receives the benefit of a presumption of irreparable harm
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.