With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 64 L.Ed.2d 702 (1980); 13A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.2 & n. 31 (1984 & 2003 Supp.) (“Partial relief in another action, on the other hand, does not moot an action seeking additional relief.”). Id. at 745. Even assuming C. Line is correct that it was not afforded “complete” relief by the Iowa Court of Appeals decision due to Defendants’ continued refusal to issue a paper adult entertainment license, the Court nonetheless finds C. Line’s enforcement request moot. As C. Line acknowledges, the Iowa Supreme Court held on July 27, 2012, that all municipal ordinances regulating live nude dancing are null and void because they are expressly preempted by Iowa Code § 728.11. See Mall Real Estate L.L.C. v. City of Hamburg, 818 N.W.2d 190, 195-97 (Iowa 2012) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the question of whether Defendants must

A: holding that these exceptions apply in any event only to the states and not to local governments
B: holding that chapter three of agricultural code 3 pacs  311318 authorizes attorney general to bring preenforcement action to invalidate or enjoin enforcement of local ordinance even if ordinance existed on chapter threes effective date
C: holding that iowa code chapter 728 applies to live nude dancing and that  72811 restricts governmental subdivisions from enacting any local ordinance regulating conduct covered in  chapter 728 and noting that the plain language of section 72811 also creates an exception for a local governments zoning authority not for its licensing or permitting authority emphasis added
D: holding that chapter 504 waives the governmental immunity of political subdivisions for retaliatory discharge claims under chapter 451
C.