Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
19(a), and; (2) if the absent party is necessary and cannot be joined, then the court must decide if “in equity and good conscience” the action should be dismissed because the nonparty is indispensable. Makah Indian Tribe v. Verity, 910 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir.1990). (1) In order to determine if the absent party is necessary to the suit; (a) a court must determine if complete relief is possible among those already parties to the suit and; (b) whether the absent party has a legally protected interest in the suit. Id. at 558. This interest must be more than a-financial stake, and more than speculation about a future event. Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 466, 468 (9th Cir.1986); See McLaughlin v. International Ass’n of Machinists, 847 F.2d 620, 621 (9th Cir.1988) ; Northrop Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that determination of the oklahoma and texas common boundary in a prior suit was conclusive in future litigation
B. holding that equitable relief is only appropriate where legal remedies are inadequate
C. holding that speculation about a future event is inadequate interest in a suit
D. holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit
E. holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.