With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 41(a) after it has sought and received a TRO or a preliminary injunction can constitute a final adjudication on the merits that “the injunction should not have issued in the first instance.” Blumenthal, 910 F.2d at 1054. The determination of whether such a dismissal should be treated as a final adjudication on the merits for such purposes, however, “must be made on a case by case basis” in light of the totality of the circumstances. Belfer, 2008 WL 163615, at *2. A key factor in this analysis is whether, as here, the plaintiffs dismissal follows vacatur of the TRO or injunction on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. See Middlewest, 433 F.2d at 243; Belfer, 2008 WL 163615, at *2; cf. Rocky Mountain Timber Corp., 502 F.Supp. at 434-35 (<HOLDING>). In such circumstances, a court may “presume

A: holding in camera hearing was needed to determine whether the incourt identification was of independent origin or was the tainted product of the circumstances surrounding a bond hearing where a witness saw a suspect at a bond hearing prior to his incourt identification of the suspect and the witness may have gotten a fix on the suspect at the bond hearing
B: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
C: holding that dissolution of a tro after the plaintiff failed to carry its burden at the preliminary injunction hearing constituted a final decisions on the merits for purposes of the bond
D: holding that the dissolution of a tro constitutes a final judgment on the merits allowing recovery against the tro bond
C.