Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that summary judgment in its favor meant that the School District was not negligent, it does not follow that Edison Learning was negligent. For example, both Edison Learning and the School District may have fully complied with their duties and the assault may have been the sole fault of Viruet’s attacker. Indeed, if dismissing the School ■ District was sufficient to establish Edison’s negligence, Viruet himself could have asserted collateral estoppel against Edison at trial. Nor does the fact of settlement between Edison Learning and Viruet es tablish Edison Learning’s negligence. Settlements are not final adjudications for the purposes of collateral estoppel. See, e.g., Eighth N.-Val, Inc. v. William L. Parkinson, D.D.S., P.C., Pension Trust, 778 A.2d 1248, 1253 (Pa.Super.Ct.2001) ; Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 349 U.S.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute
B. holding a compromise to settle the dispute meant there was therefore no actual litigation
C. holding that because there was no factual dispute between the parties the presumption of correctness is not relevant
D. holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
E. holding that there was an impermissible compromise because the damages award was inadequate and liability was hotly disputed by the parties and struggled over by the jury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.