With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 166 . In re Canion, 196 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1999). 167 . 363 B.R. 801, 813 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007). 168 . Rec. Doc. 24 at 4. 169 . See August v. Boyd Gaming Corp., 135 Fed.Appx. 731, 734 (5th Cir. 2005) (determining that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties); see also La. Code of Civ, P, art, -641 ("Joinder of parties needed for just adjudication,” providing for a similar necessary party analysis). 170 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). 171 . Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). 172 . See In re Bass, 171 F.3d 1016, 1022 (5th Cir. 1999). 173 . Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 995 (3d Cir. 1984). 174 . Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380, 105 S.Ct. 1327, 84 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1738); see also Matter of Gober, 100 F.3d 1195, 1201 (5th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). 175 . See In re Keaty, 397 F.3d 264, 270 (5th

A: holding that to grant appellant relief would require an inferior federal court to determine that the state courts judgment was erroneous and would foreclose implementation of that judgment
B: holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give
C: holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect
D: holding that issuance of injunction was necessary to protect federal court judgment when hawaiian state courts refused to grant it preclusive effect
C.