With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that this claim is barred. Contrary to Deitz’s assertion, the issue of his party status was actually litigated in the bankruptcy court. In Deitz’s motion to alter or amend the stay order, filed in the bankruptcy court, he judicially admitted that the issue of “[wjhether the action was against the debtor as personal representative, or as an individual” was “specifically raised in ... the debtor’s motion for summary judgment, briefed on both sides, and scheduled for argument on May 8,1995.” The identical issue is now raised by Deitz in this litigation. The bankruptcy court rejected Deitz’s argument when, on May 15, 1995, it denied Deitz’s motion for summary judgment and granted the siblings’ motion. See generally Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245, 256, (D.C.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1078, 113 S.Ct. 1044,

A: recognizing that inextricably intertwined analysis extends to issues not actually decided by the state court
B: holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies in removal proceedings
C: holding that issue preclusion extends to a matter that the court must necessarily albeit implicitly have decided
D: holding issue preclusion bars section 1983 plaintiff from relitigating fourth amendment issue decided in state court criminal proceeding
C.