Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on the merits, and it is undisputed that he was in no way involved in the condemnation proceedings that were conducted in the state court action. The parties agree that the declaration of taking was not filed against Koschoff until July 1, 2010 — a full fifteen years after the conclusion of the other plaintiffs’ condemnation proceedings. Both claim and issue preclusion require that the parties in a prior and latter suit be identical or in privity to each other. See Chada v. Chada, 756 A.2d 39, 42-43 (Pa.Super.2000) (res judicata requires identity of persons and parties to both actions; an issue may be precluded if the party against whom it was asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case). Koschoff was n, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983) . Specifically, the doctrine prevents “cases
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court lacked power to decide personal jurisdiction issue already decided by district of columbia superior court
B. holding that the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs complaint to the extent they sought review  of the district of columbia court of appeals denial of their petitions
C. recognizing district court application of the same rule
D. holding that the federal district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review the courts denial of a particular application for admission to the district of columbia bar
E. holding that federal district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction to review the decision of a district of columbia high court determining application of a local rule to the case before it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.