With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". similarly, a factual dispute regarding whether or not Defendants should be entitled to qualified immunity. Because the Court’s denial of qualified immunity was based on a factual dispute requiring resolution by a trier of fact; there was no “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court’s denial of summary judgment should therefore not have been subject to an interlocutory appeal. Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. at 319-20, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (“holding that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.”); see also Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit Dist., 724 F.3d 1159, 1164 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>) In holding that qualified immunity is not

A: holding that  reasonableness of the officers decision in applying for and executing the warrant is a legal question and therefore the court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the district courts order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity
B: holding that ninth circuit jurisdiction over summary judgment appeals is limited we may review only the district courts legal conclusion that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity
C: holding that an officer applying for a warrant without probable cause may be entitled to qualified immunity but is not entitled to absolute immunity
D: holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
B.