With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.2d at 311. For this reason, where preliminary injunctive relief is available to maintain a live controversy, it is of no consequence to the mootness inquiry that a particular party has failed to actually obtain such relief. “[A] party may not profit from the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review exception ... where through his own failure to seek and obtain [prompt relief] he has prevented [an] appellate court from reviewing the trial court’s decision.” Id. at 311; see also Newdow v. Roberts, 603 F.3d 1002, 1008-09 (D.C.Cir.2010). In such circumstances, we have no power to hear the action, and the controversy must be resolved in a future action presenting a live dispute. Doe, 697 F.3d at 1241; see also Headwaters, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 893 F.2d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Bunker, 820 F.2d at 311. Lawsuits seeking to

A: recognizing a mootness exception for abortion litigation because pregnancy  truly could be capable of repetition yet evading review 
B: holding that we have no difficulty concluding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permit was capable of repetition yet evading review
C: holding that challenge to expired fiveyear npdes permits originally issued eight years earlier was capable of repetition yet evading review
D: holding that a party may not invoke the capable of repetition yet evading review exception where its failure to obtain prompt relief has prevented judicial review
D.