With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". albeit dicta, supports by negative implication allowing claimants to proceed in state court so long as the vessel owner’s right to limitation of liability is adequately protected through appropriate stipulations. Extending the “single claimant” exception to instances like the present has also been endorsed by a number of our sister circuits. Specifically, the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have all allowed multiple claimants to proceed in state court where the claimants have stipulated to certain conditions, namely concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district court to decide the limitation of the vessel owner’s liability and the claimants’ waiver of any res judicata assertion. See Odeco Oil & Gas Co. v. Bonnette (Odeco I), 4 F.3d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Dammers & Vanderheide & Scheepvaart

A: holding that a single claimants stipulations and prioritization of her multiple claims created a single claim situation
B: holding that claimants stipulations which fully protected the shipowners right to seek limited liability and claimants agreement to abide by an admiralty court determination of the right to limit were adequate to lift an injunction of state court proceedings
C: holding that claimants have an enforceable right to compliance with specific remand instructions when such are issued by the board or court
D: holding that district court did not abuse discretion by denying review of factual determination that claimants stores were not tourism businesses within the meaning of the settlement agreement
B.