Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties based on PNE defendants’ conduct in canceling the fire insurance. The arbitrator in Case II dismissed all claims of plaintiffs and defendants’, including plaintiffs claim against PNE Media for “the cancellation of the insurance policy and the failure to notify plaintiff of the cancellation.” .It is well settled that under principles of res judicata a final judgment is conclusive “not only as to all matters actually litigated and determined, but also as to matters which could properly have been litigated and determined in the former action. . . .” Fickley v. Greystone Enters., 140 N.C. App. 258, 260, 536 S.E.2d 331, 333 (2000) (citations omitted); See, e.g., Holly Farm Foods, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 114 N.C. App. 412, 442 S.E.2d 94 (1994)  (emphasis added). “The procedural history of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that res judicata applies when the question of jurisdiction is raised and determined
B. holding res judicata precluded landlord from bringing second action for damages of unpaid future rents after a final judgment determined tenants damages arising out of the breach of lease in landlords first action
C. holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action
D. holding subsequent action not barred by res judicata because the thing sued for in the initial action was an injunction against heathrows threatened breach of contract while the thing sued for in the subsequent action was money damages allegedly sustained as a result of heathrows actual breach of contract where the damages alleged in the subsequent action unlike the damages alleged here arose after trial of the initial action
E. holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.