With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cir.2003). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, we accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. We review the district court’s interpretation of Montana law de novo. Marcy v. Delta Airlines, 166 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.1999). In interpreting Montana law, we must follow the decisions of Montana’s highest court. See Olympic Sports Prods., Inc. v. Universal Athletic Sales Co., 760 F.2d 910, 912-13 (9th Cm. 1985). We review de novo the court’s ruling that the statement was not defamatory as a matter of law. Steam Press Holdings, Inc. v. Haw. Teamsters, Allied Workers Union Local 996, 302 F.3d 998, 1005 (9th Cir.2002). III. A. Montana Law Does Not Entitle the Knievels to a Jury Trial Th 4-95 (1982) (<HOLDING>); Griffin v. Opinion Publ’g Co., 114 Mont. 502,

A: holding that the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case
B: holding that it is clearly settled that where there is a failure to establish an essential element of the defamation cause of action the case becomes one of law for the court
C: holding that it is well settled that there is no constitutional right to an appeal
D: holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established
B.