With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". authority. In determining whether to retain jurisdiction, courts look to four factors: economy, convenience to the parties, fairness to the parties, and comity. Querner, 7 F.3d at 1202; In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 328; In re Morris, 960 F.2d at 1534. Thus, when claims had been pending for several years and concerned issues with which bankruptcy courts are familiar, the factors have warranted continuing jurisdiction. See, e.g, In re Carraher, 971 F.2d at 328 (finding postbankruptcy jurisdiction appropriate where comity not implicated because issue concerned res judicata effect of prior bankruptcy decision and claims had been pending for six years); In re Morris, 950 F.2d at 1534 (continuing jurisdiction over contract claim that had been pending six years); In re Smith, 866 F.2d at 580 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, continuing jurisdiction was not

A: holding over
B: holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment
C: holding citys plea to the jurisdiction in rule 202 proceeding properly denied because district court had jurisdiction over portion of claim under investigation even if city and governmental agency had exclusive jurisdiction over another portion of claim
D: holding postbankruptcy jurisdiction proper over fraud claim pending for four years
D.