Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of that order. We consolidated the appeal and the petition for writ of certiorari for review. Fernwoods has now dismissed its appeals from the March 21 and March 29 orders; Octubre has also dismissed her cross-appeal from the March 10 order. This leaves pending for resolution only the Rodriguez’ cross-appeal of the March 29 order permitting Octubre to intervene and staying collection and their certiorari petition challenging the propriety of that same order. As the following eases establish, the March 29 order must be reversed: Goolsby v. State, 914 So.2d 494, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (concluding that “any order entered simultaneously with an order of recusal ... [is] void and [has] no effect”); Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Tarr, 557 So.2d 595, 595-96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ; Economic Dev. Corp. of Dade County, Inc. v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding recusal not required
B. holding that the oral rendition of an order in open court does not constitute entry of that order
C. holding that an order granted simultaneously with a recusal order is void unless the trial judges written order  was but a reduction of an earlier adverse oral ruling made prior to the recusal
D. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order
E. holding that the judges recusal order effectively deprived that judge of authority to preside over the contempt proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.