Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Montana Constitution provides that “[i]n all suits and prosecutions for libel or slander the truth thereof may be given in evidence; and the jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the facts.” Mont. Const, art. II, § 7. The Knievels interpret this provision to mean that they are entitled to a jury trial because they have a “special constitutional right in a libel and slander case in Montana” that guarantees them their “fair day in court.” But Montana’s highest court, which we are bound to follow, interprets the provision differently. The Montana Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the ability of judges to dispose of defamation claims where there are no issues of fact warranting a jury trial. Hale v. City of Billings, 295 Mont. 495, 986 P.2d 413, 418 (1999) ; Small v. McRae, 200 Mont. 497, 651 P.2d 982,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that pure issue of law is preserved by motion for summary judgment and is reviewable after final judgment
B. holding that if there is any issue of fact which remains upon a motion for summary judgment the motion must be denied
C. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
D. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
E. holding that whether a statement is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is an issue that a court can and should rightfully determine upon a motion for summary judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.