Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
any time, including within one year of the purchase. Contrary to plaintiffs' assertion, there is no evidence that Father and the Company agreed that he would hold legal title "indefinitely.” Rather, all evidence suggests that this issue simply fell through the proverbial cracks until it surfaced in preparation for the merger with Darling in 2010. 16 . Inasmuch as plaintiffs' substantive allegations against Robert relate solely to his role in the 2010 merger and the Cold Spring title transfer, the Court also finds that Robert should be dismissed as a defendant as a matter of law. 17 . Further, the Court rejects defendants’ argument that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the probate exception to federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Wisecarver v. Moore, 489 F.3d 747, 750 (6th Cir.2007) . 18 . Although Keating argues that Griffin
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a probate court lacked jurisdiction over a proceeding to declare heirship because a court empowered with probate jurisdiction may only exercise its probate jurisdiction over matters incident to an estate when a probate proceeding related to such matters is already pending in that court emphasis added quoting bailey v cherokee cty appraisal dist 862 sw2d 581 585 tex 1993
B. holding that a suit for compensatory and punitive damages against various probate judges for conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of property during the probate proceedings was not barred by the probate exception or rookerfeldman abstention doctrine
C. holding that texass probate statute does not affect whether the probate exception to federal jurisdiction applies to a case
D. holding that breach of fiduciary claim falls outside probate exception
E. holding that probate exception does not apply where plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty seek in personam jurisdiction over defendants and do not seek to probate or annul a will
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.