Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
order that there is no just reason for delay, it may direct in the order the entry of a final judgment: (1) as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties[.] 6 . Assuming, arguendo, that the circuit court intended.to — and did— dismiss the entire action, that ruling would have been erroneous. Md. Rule 2-213 provides: Misjoinder of parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. So long as one of the original plaintiffs and one of the original defendants remain as parties to the action, parties may be dropped ... by order of the court on motion of any party.... Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately. Severance rather than dismissal is the appropriate remedy for misjoinder when, as here, the appellants and the Asbestos Defe .Y.1993) ; Ex parte Rudolph, 515 So.2d 704 (Ala. 1987)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding on policy grounds that a strict liability claim should not lie against drug manufacturer
B. holding joinder of two defendants was proper where plaintiffs filed a products liability claim against general motors and a negligent roadway design claim against a local government for injuries caused by an automobile accident
C. holding that despite a jury verdict against the insured hospital for medical malpractice liability was not beyond dispute
D. holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug
E. holding defendant made motive issue in drug conspiracy prosecution by advancing theory he was conducting investigation of drug dealing
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.