Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Court may not dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Herbstein, 743 F.Supp. at 188 (finding Argentine case was at preliminary stage where formal investigation into possible misappropriation had just begun and there had not yet been any determination of actual wrongdoing). The Defendant by the Swiss District Court regarding Pablo’s liability on Ms. Madanes’ contractual claim would not dispose of the RICO claims in this action. For example, determining that Pablo is guilty on the contractual claim does not answer the question of whether he managed an international conspiracy; nor does a finding of innocence necessarily mean that no such conspiracy existed, especially among the other Defendants. See id.; Herbstein, 743 F.Supp. at 188 . The principal cases upon which the Defendants
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that utsa preempted a breach of fiduciary duty claim because the factual allegations supporting that claim involved only the misappropriation of  information
B. holding that claim of misappropriation was distinguishable from claim of fraudulent inducement even though underlying facts were same
C. holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california
D. holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action
E. holding that even if utah law recognized tort of misappropriation such a claim would be preempted by copyright act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.