Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Mueller oppose entry of default judgment on the ground that the "Law Offices of James Nabholz, III” is not an existing entity capable of being sued. Because I lack subject-matter jurisdiction, I will not resolve this issue. 2 . Although the complaint alleges that Mueller was associated with the defendant Law Office of James Nabholz, III, American Family claims that Mueller was actually in-house legal counsel for American Family. I note, however, that Mueller signed pleadings in the underlying state-court action on behalf of the Law Office of James Nabholz, III. 3 . American Family’s argument that the complaint does not state a claim against Mueller because it includes allegations of ethical violations is meritless. See Chrysler Corp. v. Carey, 5 F.Supp.2d 1023, 1031-32 (E.D.Mo.1998)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that ethical violations may be relevant to tort claims brought against attorneys
B. holding that tort claims that could have been brought outside the bankruptcy environment are noncore without discussing whether claims were brought pre or postpetition
C. holding that this language applies to tort claims brought under the federal tort claims act  against a contractor who has a selfdetermination contract
D. holding section 101106f cannot be used by employees to obtain dismissal of common law intentional tort claims because those claims could not have been brought under the texas tort claims act
E. holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.