With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court ultimately ruled that the circuit court’s judgment was too broad because it permanently enjoined the director from ever requiring the driver to submit to an examination. Id. at 628. Cunningham argues that Haynes supports his position that the circuit court had jurisdiction to determine whether the director had good cause to require the driver to submit to an examination, regardless of whether the date of suspension for failure to take the test had passed. The Haynes court determined that it is within the circuit court’s discretion to determine whether the director had “good cause” to believe that a driver is incompetent, and therefore subject to an examination of his driving skills pursuant to § 302.291. Id. at 627. See also Wilson v. Morris, 369 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Mo.1963)(<HOLDING>). In this matter, however, it is clear that the

A: holding that there was no federal subject matter jurisdiction under the private cause of action provision of the act
B: recognizing cause of action
C: holding that the circuit court properly reviewed the discretionary action of the director in finding there was good cause under  302291
D: holding that when the district court improperly purported to transfer to the circuit court an action over which the circuit court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter its judgment which was void and dismissing the appeal from that void judgment
C.