With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supplemental post-judgment proceedings under Rule 69(a) where the factual predicate of the alter ego claim was substantially distinct from the facts proving the underlying claim and no independent basis for federal jurisdiction existed). In the present proceeding, Futura seeks to hold the Commonwealth accountable for the existing MD judgment as an alter ego of CDC. Like piercing the corporate veil, an alter ego claim presents a substantive theory seeking to establish liability on the part of a new party not otherwise liable. See Futura II, 144 F.3d at 12 (describing alter ego theory as “a substantive theory for imposing liability upon entities that would, on first blush, not be thought liable” and as requiring “a subsequent and distinct inquiry”). See also Sandlin, 972 F.2d at 1217-18 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, Futura has consistently characterized

A: holding that the circuit lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the merits of plaintiffs claims are inescapably intertwined with a review of the procedures and merits surrounding the faas order
B: holding that claims are related if they involve a common core of facts or they are based on related legal theories
C: holding that federal enforcement jurisdiction does not reach alter ego claims unless sufficiently intertwined with the merits of the underlying action as they involve different legal theories
D: recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits
C.