Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Anderson-Tra-han simply by becoming embroiled in this conflict, and the existence of Mitchell’s lawsuit, regardless of whether Mitchell prevails. Hood’s claims against Judge Anderson-Trahan stand on their own, and Hood’s amended complaint does not limit his claims to mitigating any damages that he may need to pay to Mitchell. Because Judge Anderson-Trahan is not a properly impleaded party under Rule 14, she must be dismissed as a party. Therefore, we need not address whether Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP statute may be raised by a third party on behalf of an original defendant. Nor do we address whether a party must embrace the speech at issue in order to assert a defense under the anti-SLAPP statute. The district court also certified the question of whether it could a 54, 261 (9th Cir.2013) ; Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 88 (1st
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding cercla does not preempt californias corporate capacity statute
B. holding that californias liquor pricefixing statute violated federal antitrust law
C. holding that the district of columbias antislapp law could not be applied in federal court in a diversity case because it conflicted with federal rules of civil procedure 12 and 56
D. holding that californias antislapp statute is applicable in federal court
E. holding that maines antislapp statute could be applied in the district court because federal rules of civil procedure 12 and 56 are not so broad as to attempt  to answer the same question as the statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.