With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (West 1998); Fla. Stat Ann. § 68.081-092 (West 1998). In any event, the argument that states are relators under § 3730(b)(1) is rather strained. To the extent it relies on the Senate Report author’s knowledge of one suit by a state relator, it is no more persuasive than the analogous argument based on the Report’s “recognition” of pri- or suits against state defendants. The argument, moreover, depends on the proposition that § 3730(b)(5) prevents all parties, except for the United States, from intervening in another relator’s qui tam action. Yet it is not at all clear that this provision precludes all forms of party joinder, which would effectively limit qui tam actions to single relators. See United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Indus., Inc., 31 F.3d 1015, 1017 (10th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). If states could join as co-plaintiffs with

A: holding that  3730b5 does not prohibit all forms of joinder but only prevents permissive intervention in a relators suit by unrelated parties under fedrcivp 24b2
B: recognizing intervention is generally impermissible after entry of final judgment and exception allowing postjudg ment intervention in the interests of justice is limited to permitting intervention by affected persons so that an appeal can be taken
C: holding that an order denying intervention is final and subject to immediate review if it prevents the applicant from becoming a party to the action and taking jurisdiction under  1291
D: holding that pursuant to rule 2a2 a party may appeal an order denying a motion for permissive intervention
A.