Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
MedtroMc first argues that res judi-cata requires KulinsM to plead all bases for jurisdiction in his original pleading. TMs argument is inconsistent with our precedent. In McCarney v. Ford Motor Co., 657 F.2d 230 (8th Cir.1981), we held that a dismissal based on subject matter jurisdiction: should preclude relitigation of the same [jurisdiction] issue but not a second smt on the same claim even if arising out of the identical set of facts_ [W]here the second suit presents new theories of relief, admittedly based upon the same operative facts as alleged m the first action, it is not precluded because the first decision was not on the merits of the substantive claim. Id. at 233-34 (citations omitted); cf. Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Homestake Mining Co., 722 F.2d 1407, 1411 (8th Cir.1983) . Ku-linsM based his first action on federal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action
B. holding that where no member of present plaintiff class had cause of action at time prior judgment was entered claim cannot be barred by res judicata
C. recognizing the express reservation of the plaintiffs right to maintain a second action as an exception to the doctrine of res judicata
D. holding that the plaintiffs due process claims were completely barred by res judicata because the underlying factual predicate for each of these claims  is substantially identical to the allegations presented in state court
E. holding that when claims regarding the employment relationship arise after the plaintiffs first case is initiated the second case is not barred by res judicata
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.