With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1517. Instead, the Supreme Court has directed that most actions should be dealt with on preclusion grounds, rather than jurisdiction. See id. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (“Nor does § 1257 stop a district court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously litigated in state court. If a federal plaintiff ‘present[s] some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a ease to which he was a party ..., then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion.’ ” (quoting GASH Assocs. v. Rosemont, 995 F.2d 726, 728 (7th Cir.1993))); Todd v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 434 F.3d 432, 437 (6th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The defendant’s argument that the doctrine

A: holding that even if the plaintiffs independent claim was inextricably linked to the state court decision preclusion law was the correct solution to challenge the federal claim not rookerfeldman 
B: holding that rookerfeldman doctrine bars federal determination of claim where the district court must hold that the state court was wrong in order to find in favor of the plaintiff
C: holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman
D: holding that the federal claims which arose from state court criminal contempt proceedings were inextricably intertwined with the state court action and thus the federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to the rookerfeldman doctrine
A.