With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". similarly held that although “the repeal or amendment of a law moots challenges to the original law ... [t]he existence of [a] damages claim preserves the plaintiffs’ backward-looking right to challenge the original law and to preserve a live case or controversy over that dispute.” Midwest Media Prop., L.L.C. v. Symmes Twp., 503 F.3d 456, 460-61 (6th Cir. 2007). See also Ohio Citizen Action v. City of Englewood, 671 F.3d 564, 581 (6th Cir. 2012) (“However, if the plaintiffs complaint includes a claim for damages, that claim ‘preserves the plaintiff[’s] backward-looking right to challenge the original law and to preserve a live case or controversy over that dispute.’”) (quoting Midwest Media, 503 F.3d at 461); Prime Media, Inc. v. City of Brentwood, 398 F.3d 814, 824 (6th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Even “a claim for nominal damages ... is

A: holding that court may not sever clause from initial ordinance and submit remainder of ordinance to voters
B: holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
C: holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance
D: holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
C.