With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is of no moment for claim preclusion purposes. See OCR Case Resolution and Investigation Manual § 109(i) (2005) (stating that "OCR will decline to proceed further with complaint allegations” when "[(litigation has been filed raising the same allegations”). 9 . In fact, the only claims subject to the one-year statute of limitations were Ms. Hall’s state libel and slander claims. The intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence claims were subject to the general 3-year statute of limitations. See Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Furthermore, Ms. Hall has offered no explanation for her failure to assert her breach of contract claim in the original State Complaint. 10 . See Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 478, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981) (<HOLDING>). See also De Bleecker v. Montgomery County, 48

A: holding that a statute shall not be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication
B: holding that a federal court improperly dismissed suit on abstention grounds where there was no concurrent jurisdiction over the federal claims
C: recognizing a general presumption of concurrent jurisdiction by state courts over federal claims which is rebuttable by an explicit statutory directive by unmistakable implication from legislative history or by a clear incompatibility between statecourt jurisdiction and federal interests
D: holding that federal jurisdiction over rico claims is concurrent and not exclusive
C.