Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
district court proceedings. See Boushel, 985 F.2d at 409; see also Kozeny, 236 F.3d at 619 (concluding a stay was not a final appealable order because a judgment in the foreign litigation would “not necessarily end the litigation in [the United States]”). Even if the district court gives the Austrian courts’ damages award res judicata effect, the effect is not of sufficient magnitude to render the stay immediately appealable because the damages issue is more than offset by issues relating to the constructive trust, the recognition of the assignment, and the recognition of the Austrian judgments. Michelson, 138 F.3d at 514 (requiring the stay to give res judi-cata effect “on all or an important part of the subsequent federal case” to be immediately appealable); Boushel, 985 F.2d at 409 . The district court’s stay order is not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding judgment under fed rcivp 12b6 is entitled to res judicata effect
B. holding a stay final and appealable when the state decision would constitute res judicata as to at least the two major issues in the federal suit
C. holding that lear does not abrogate general principles of res judicata or the res judicata effect of a consent decree regarding patent validity
D. holding some res judicata effect from a foreign judgment was insufficient to make a stay immediately appealable
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.