Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Mot. Dis. at 3^4. b. Plaintiffs Response. Plaintiff offers no response to the Government’s argument. c. The Court’s Resolution. The United States Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over claims asserted under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Murray v. United States, 817 F.2d 1580, 1583-84 (Fed.Cir.1987) (“Although the Claims Court has jurisdiction over a[t]aking claim, the more difficult question is whether the [plaintiff has] stated such a claim in this ease”). To invoke the court’s jurisdiction, the plaintiff must admit that the Government’s taking was authorized, because an actionable “takings” can only result from authorized federal actions. See Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 458 F.3d 1327, 1329-32 (Fed.Cir.2006) ; see also Blanchette v. Connecticut General
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the premise underlying the action was that plaintiff was deceived by the words and actions of an employer the subject of the deception was pension benefits but that was only incidental and not essential to the cause of action
B. holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs
C. holding that in a declaratory judgment action it is the character of the impending action not the plaintiffs defense that determines whether there is federal question jurisdiction
D. holding that in a takings case the court assumes that the underlying action was lawful and decides only whether the governmental action in question constituted a taking for which compensation must be paid
E. holding that notwithstanding fact that employer brought suit in its own name pursuant to ocga  349111 c only for the liquidated amount that had been paid to the employee in workers compensation benefits after employee failed to file his own tort action within one year of injury employee was not precluded from bringing his own separate action to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium but noting that employee received notice of employers suit only after filing his own action suggesting that court in which employers action was pending had wrongly denied the employees motion to intervene to which motion employer had objected noting that if employee had not moved to intervene in other action employees separate action would have been barred by laches and holding that thirdparty tortfeasor could move for mandatory joinder of the employer in the employees action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.