Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
have transpired differently had the proper defendants been named. In these circumstances, and particularly where the party seeking to avoid claim preclusion was the plaintiff in the prior action and the sole source of the error in naming the incorrect party, res judicata should bar the plaintiff from gaining a second opportunity to litigate the very same claims, even where complete identity between the parties is lacking. See Cahill, 659 F.Supp. at 1123. To find otherwise would be to elevate form over substance in a manner inconsistent with the underlying goals of res judicata. See Amalgamated Sugar Co., 825 F.2d at 640 (“The doctrine of privity [in the res judicata context] ... is to be applied with flexibility.”); Expert Electric, Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1233 (2d Cir.1977) . Although the Second Circuit has not, to the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that identity of parties for res judicata purposes is a determination of substance not mere form
B. holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata
C. holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes
D. holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes
E. holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.