Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
vexation of conflicting claims. See Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 406-08, 59 S.Ct. 563, 567-69, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939); John, supra, 141 F.R.D. at 33; see generally 7 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1704 at 501 (2d ed. 1986). As interpleader provides a method to compel adverse claimants to litigate their claims to property in a single proceeding, the burden is on the party seeking interpleader to demonstrate its entitlement to the remedy. Id. § 1714 at 583. The plaintiff demonstrably has failed to carry its burden in this case. In general, an existing and a prospective claim from separate parties are sufficient to meet the jurisdictional requirement of multiple liability. See Bell v. Nutmeg Airways Corp., 66 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.Conn.1975) ; 3A Moore & Lucas, supra, ¶ 22.-08[2]. The
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it
B. holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment
C. holding that a defendant may not be convicted of multiple offenses under  922g on the basis that he belonged to more than one prohibited class or that he simultaneously possessed more than one firearm
D. holding in the alternative that plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that but for plaintiffs age he would not have been constructively discharged where plaintiff was asked on more than one occasion when he was going to retire emphasis in original
E. holding that adversity existed between plaintiff and defendantclaimants despite fact that plaintiff al leged he was nothing more than stakeholder as he requested court to enjoin future claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.