Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
allow the Restaurant to litigate the matter. Cf. Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992) (“Res judicata, or claims preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a claim or cause of action that has been finally adjudicated, as well as related matters that, with the use of diligence, should have been litigated in the prior suit.”). The Restaurant therefore attempted the other approach ad dressed in Mantas, that is, it filed a separate suit to resolve the settlement dispute and asked the appellate court to abate the appeal of the underlying cause pending that resolution. Our own precedent indicates that res judicata would not apply in these circumstances. See Wood v. Cosme, 447 S.W.2d 746, 750 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1969, no writ) . In the unusual circumstances presented here,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that res judicata does not bar litigation of a claim pleaded in an earlier case if the record of the case shows that the court refused to decide the issue
B. holding that res judicata does not bar those claims that arose after the original pleading is filed in the earlier proceeding
C. holding that res judicata barred a claim that had been voluntarily abandoned in a previous litigation
D. 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
E. holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.