Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to reimburse the widow for the amount she paid to satisfy the mortgage on the condominium before her husband’s death, even if she did so under the mistaken belief that she was the titleholder to the property. Reversed and remanded for proceedings in compliance herewith. 1 . The appellants argue certain of the widow’s claims are barred by res judicata. Because the claims made in the amended complaint filed by her in this action are different from those made by the appellants in Aronson I, there is no res judicata defense available to the appellants in this case. See AMEC Civil, LLC v. State Dep’t of Transp., 41 So.3d 235, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jones v. State ex rel. City of Winter Haven, 870 So.2d 52, 55 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pipkin v. Wiggins, 526 So.2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) . 2 . Three requirements must be satisfied for
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding res judicata did not bar current litigation when prior litigation between the parties involved one breach of obligation under a joint venture agreement and instant litigation was based upon a different cause of action from a subsequent interference with the same agreement
B. holding that entry of judgment in the underlying litigation does not moot an appeal from a denial of a motion to intervene if one of the parties keeps the underlying litigation live by pursuing an appeal
C. holding that letters addressing dispute that was subject of litigation and that were written in anticipation of litigation did not fall under business record exception under rule 8036 of the federal rules of evidence and noting that it is wellestablished that one who prepares a document in anticipation of litigation is not acting in the regular course of business
D. holding hospitals prior litigation conduct in criminal case constituted waiver of right to arbitrate where prior litigation involved developing evidence as part of strategic plan for defense of civil suit for damages
E. holding that the current party was sufficiently identified with the parties to the prior litigation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.