Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
caused by Visa’s absence from this litigation. Any such harm would result from FIFA’s alleged conduct in awarding Visa sponsorship rights it could not legally give. We would be significantly broadening both Rule 19(a)(2)® and the principle discussed in Crouse-Hinds if we found that because the outcome of this case may impact a separate contract involving a different party, that finding would transform the action into “an action to set aside a lease or a contract.” Crouse-Hinds, 634 F.2d at 701 (quoting Lomayaktewa, 520 F.2d at 1325). Crouse-Hinds involved an actual .action to set aside a contract; here we have an action that could in the future impact a third party’s rights under a separate contract. We, therefore, do not find Crouse-Hinds controlling here and decline to b Cir.1990) , we do not find this reasoning applicable
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing actions to quiet title are equitable in nature and a court sitting in equity has jurisdiction to quiet title as a remedy for fraud
B. holding that federal government may not under michigan law attach lien to entireties property to satisfy individual tax liability of one spouse
C. holding that state legislature should determine whether to cure discriminatory tax by enforcing tax as to all or forgiving tax in its entirety
D. holding that a lien holder who is not served and joined as a party to a tax suit cannot have his lien extinguished by the tax sale
E. holding that in an action to quiet title by aggrieved tax payer against government seeking to recover automobiles sold to satisfy tax lien purchasers of automobiles were necessary parties
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.