Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the technical complications. The judgment, however, should have complied with the technicalities, that is, it should have been entered in the name of the actual plaintiff. 5 . Even if the law were otherwise, the right to a setoff here would be far from clear. Mr. Bozeman and General Motors were not joint tortfeasors. See D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So.2d 424, 435 (Fla.2001) (treating person who caused wreck and crashworthiness defendant as successive, not joint, tortfea-sors). Setoffs generally are available only with respect to joint tortfeasors. See, e.g., Ellingson v. Willis, 170 So.2d 311, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964), overruled on other grounds, Devlin v. McMannis, 231 So.2d 194 (Fla.1970); see also Gordon v. Marvin M. Rosenberg, D.D.S., P.A., 654 So.2d 643, 645 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) . If damages were indivisible, these defendants
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the separate and distinct claims of two or more plaintiffs cannot be aggregated to establish jurisdiction
B. holding that a breach of contract claim against one defendant related back to interference with contract claim against that defendant and breach of contract claim against second defendant because it was based on same set of operative facts
C. holding that settlement with one defendant could not be setoff from verdict against second defendant where the claims were separate and distinct ie involving different elements of damages
D. holding that a claim for damages based on creditors failure to honor a rescission notice is separate and distinct from any claims associated with disclosures at the time of closing
E. holding that a plaintiff could not add civil claim based upon different facts that are separate and distinct both qualitatively and temporally  and relate to the conduct of different individuals from facts in administrative charge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.