Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Rochester Folding Box Co., 171 N.Y. 538, 64 N.E. 442 (1902). As such, it is well-established that generally a tort plaintiff is not required to proceed against all joint tortfeasors but may proceed against one, some or all of them. See Bassett v. Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 204 F.3d 343, 360 (2d Cir.2000) (citations omitted). Defendants do not articulate any interest of the Oneida Nation or the Casino which would be affected by the outcome of the claims against the other Defendants, nor is there anything in the record to suggest that any party would be prejudiced by permitting Plaintiffs to proceed against the other Defendants in the absence of the Oneida Nation and the Casino. Compare id. with Fluent v. Salamanca Indian Lease Auth., 928 F.2d 542, 547 (2d Cir.1991) (citations omitted) . Accordingly, the Court holds that the Oneida
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that seneca nation is indispensable party to claims seeking to nullify agreement in which it has an interest
B. holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal
C. holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it
D. holding father waived claim that alleged de facto custodian should have been named as party in child support proceeding by failing to move to join party or to dismiss for lack of an indispensable party
E. holding that a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.