Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the res judicata doctrine bars Donald’s action against him. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, “prevents the relitigation of factual issues already decided if the identical issue was determined by a prior final judgment, and the party estopped had a fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the issue in a prior proceeding.” Portland Co., 2009 ME 98, ¶22, 979 A.2d at 1287 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 19] A party to a current proceeding may assert collateral estoppel defensively to bar the opposing party from relitigating factual issues resolved against it in a prior proceeding and which were decided by a prior final judgment, even though the party asserting collateral es-toppel was not a party to the prior proceeding. See Brewer v. Hagemann, 2001 ME 27, ¶ 8, 771 A.2d 1080, 1033 ; Hossler v. Barry, 403 A.2d 762, 768
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action
B. holding that a civil claim is barred by collateral estoppel even though the prior adjudication was in criminal proceedings and the parties are not the same because the matters were actually litigated and decided in the prior trial
C. holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement
D. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated
E. holding that the defendant though not a party to the prior litigation could assert collateral estoppel defensively to preclude the plaintiff from relitigating factual issues that the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.