Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
summary judgment on all claims by all eleven transitory employees whose contracts expired on or before April 30, 2013. (Docket No. 98 at 11-12.) Because Defendant Rodríguez-Díaz did not become the HR Director until June 5, 2013, Defendants argue it is impossible that he would have participated in the non-renewals of these employees’ contracts. Id Plaintiffs admit that those employees have no claims against co- Defendant Rodriguez-Diaz. (Docket No. 106 ¶¶ 3-10, 12-15.) Rodriguez-Diaz is not personally liable for those claims. 10 . Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Article 1802 claim, arguing that because Section 1983 already covers the conduct complained of here, the tort claims under state law do not stand. See Santini Rivera v. Serv. Air, Inc., 137 D.P.R. 1 (1994) . As in their motion for judgment on the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims for relief premised on alleged negligent wrongful or unauthorized conduct by the irs are based in tort and not within the jurisdiction of this court
B. holding article 1802 claims only survive where the conduct alleged of is based on tortious or negligent conduct different from the conduct covered by other specific labor laws involved
C. holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas
D. holding that where no wrongful conduct by the defendant was alleged ie a breach accompanied by violence intimidation defamation fraud or other tortious conduct other than the breach of its contractual obligation under its bylaws no claim for tortious interference can lie
E. holding that if the underlying conduct is wrongful only by virtue of the labor laws then the rico claim is preempted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.