Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a claim under § 1500, the claim pending in another court must arise from the same operative facts, and must seek the same relief.” Id. Because the claim in the district court sought "distinctly different” relief than the claim in this court, this court was not divested of jurisdiction under § 1500. Id. at 1554. 11 . Because the court finds that plaintiffs did not have a claim “pending” in the federal district court for the District of Massachusetts when they filed in this court, the court need not address whether their “claims” are the same in both courts for the purposes of § 1500. Cases in this court that have involved later-filed district court actions have not been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 1500 even if both claims were the same. See Hardwick, 72 F.3d at 885 ; Teegarden, 42 Fed.Cl. at 255 n. 3 ("The court
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that notice of appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction at the time it was filed because a motion for reconsideration was pending
B. holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court
C. holding that the laterfiled district court action did not divest this court of jurisdiction even though the court below had found that there was no material difference in the operative facts in the two actions and were the same claims for the purposes of  1500
D. holding that summary judgment on one claim that reduced amount in controversy below statutory minimum did not divest court of jurisdiction
E. holding that a 19day difference between the filings of the state court and federal court actions was immaterial given the absence of progress in the statecourt action and the substantial proceedings that had occurred in the federal court action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.