With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint. DISCUSSION As noted in our previous decision, Snia-do, 352 F.3d at 75-76, with which we assume familiarity, Sniado alleged in his amended complaint and in court proceedings below that: (1) he paid supra-competitive service fees to exchange Euro-zone currencies; and (2) these supra-competitive fees — which he paid exclusively in European countries — were the result of an alleged price-fixing conspiracy between European banks. The district court dismissed under § 6a(2) of the FTAIA because Sniado’s complaint alleged that the effect of the European conspiracy on United States commerce gave rise to a claim, but not his particular claim. See Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, 174 F.Supp.2d. 159, 166 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (Schwartz, J.) (<HOLDING>). We vacated the district court’s dismissal and

A: holding that the weight of authority supported defendants argument that  6a2 requires the effect on domestic commerce to give rise specifically to plaintiffs antitrust claim
B: holding that the plaintiffs argument rebutting the defendants legitimate nondiscriminatory reason on the plaintiffs discrimination claim also rebutted the defendants reason on the plaintiffs retaliation claim because they were the same
C: holding that a prior settlement of an antitrust conspiracy case and the resulting judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice could not have res judicata effect in a later suit against additional parties in which the plaintiffs alleged claims based on new types of antitrust violations that were not contemplated by the earlier settlement when it would have the effect of conferring on defendants partial immunity from civil liability for distinct future antitrust violations
D: holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act
A.