With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 1194, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); see, Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982) (“When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.”), cited in Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279, 284, 111 S.Ct. 654, 658, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). Although the court’s judgment in the conspiracy case was based on state law, federal law determines the judgment’s preclusive effect. See Agrilectric Power Partners, Ltd. v. General Elec. Co., 20 F.3d 663, 664 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Collateral estoppel depends on three

A: holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law
B: holding in a res judicata case that fjederal law determines the preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment
C: holding that to determine collateral estoppel effect of a federal civil rights action fjederal law governs the preclusive effect of a claim arising under federal law
D: holding that dismissal of case on statute of limitations grounds is final judgment and barring appeal has res judicata effect
B.