With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (op. on reh’g). In the Windsor suit, the trial court specifically found that venue was proper in Tarrant County. We reviewed the venue ruling and affirmed it. Windsor, 923 S.W.2d at 93-95. Thus, we need to determine whether this final judgment on venue in the Windsor suit irrevocably fixes venue in Tarrant County for Miller II. A final judgment on venue is conclusive on the parties as to the issue of venue and irrevocably fixes venue of any suit involving the same subject matter and parties. See Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Orozco, 681 S.W.2d 245, 245 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1984, no writ); Pinney v. Cook, 558 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Tex. l Co., 510 U.S. 820, 114 S.Ct. 76, 126 L.Ed.2d 45 (1993); Southwestern Inv. Co. v. Gibson, 372 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1963, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Further, the underlying facts giving rise to

A: holding that defendant in second suit was in privity for res judicata purposes because his interests were aligned with those of defendant in first suit which concerned same facts
B: holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit
C: recognizing that res judicata does not apply unless the facts and evidence necessary to maintain suit are the same in both actions
D: holding additional parties in second suit do not prevent the application of res judicata based on the first suit
D.