With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". questions whether we have jurisdiction over CTF’s cross-appeal of the District Court’s stay, and has moved to dismiss CTF’s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Marriott argues that the stay is not a final order and is therefore not appealable. We agree that a stay is usually not a final order because it provides only a temporary respite from litigation. Marcus v. Twp. of Abington, 38 F.3d 1367, 1370 (3d Cir.1994). However, when a stay amounts to an effective dis missal of the underlying suit, it may be subjected to appellate review. Cheyney State Coll. Faculty v. Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732, 735 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983)); see also United States v. Spears, 859 F.2d 284, 287 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). We have also recognized that an indefinite

A: holding that consideration of a moot case was not required when there was no award of attorneys fees that would be affected by appellate review and the issue has not been preserved for appeal
B: holding that appellate review was effectively foreclosed unless we exercised pendent jurisdiction because the issues would become moot and untouchable because of the procedural limbo in which the decision placed the case
C: holding that the district court should not have exercised pendent party jurisdiction over the husbands loss of consortium claim and therefore the jurys verdict in his favor had to be reversed
D: holding a trial judges unappealed procedural rulings become the law of the case
B.