Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a fee award in this case on the basis of the lodestar approach is what amount, if any, should be excluded because Isacs was dismissed for want of personal jurisdiction and Standard Tallow prevailed on a summary judgment motion. It is well-established that hours expended with respect to defendants who have been dismissed from an action are generally not compensable. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1185 (3d Cir.1990); see also Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1044 (3d Cir.1996) (stating that a court must deduct hours spent on claims that are “distinct in all respects from” the successful claims); Baughman v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co., 583 F.2d 1208, 1214 (3d Cir.1978); Hall v. Harleysville Ins. Co., 943 F.Supp. 536, 542 (E.D.Pa.1996) ; Finch v. Hercules Inc., 941 F.Supp. 1395,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court must deduct time exclusively devoted to the defendants without liability
B. holding that liability under  2966 cannot attach without first finding employer liability for discrimination under nyhrl
C. holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision
D. holding that like other affirmative defenses to liability immunity from liability must be pleaded or else it is waived
E. holding that because the settlement agreement here specifically did not contain any admission of liability the plaintiff must therefore prove some liability on the part of defendant
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.