With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". liability, the Court finds unavailing Plaintiffs’ arguments concerning the existence of such a business relationship. Rather, the Court finds decisive on this issue, persuasive authority from the Eastern District of New York concerning the relevancy of interline ticketing agreements to the liability provisions of the Montreal Convention. In Best v. BWIA West Indies Airways Ltd., the District Court for the Eastern District of New York, held that the Montreal. Convention does not place liability on sellers of interline tickets because they fall within the definition of successive . carrier arrangements, which, are expressly excluded from the Convention’s liability scheme. 581 F.Supp.2d 359, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Kapar v. Kuwait Airways Corp., 845 F.2d 1100, 1103 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (<HOLDING>). Thus, because Lufthansa provided air carriage

A: holding that the remedy in a prison conditions case must remedy actual injuries that have been identified by the court and suffered by the plaintiffs
B: holding injuries suffered on trip for business and pleasure were compensable
C: recognizing the possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced by the actual conduct of a codefendants defense
D: holding that the drafters of the convention precluded the possibility that the actual carrier for one leg of a scheduled multileg trip could be held liable for injuries suffered on another airline during a different leg of the trip
D.