With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as separate claims, even if the several legal theories depend on different shadings of the fact, or would emphasize different elements of the facts, or would call for different measures of liability or different kinds of relief”). This reasoning applies here. It is uncontested that Plaintiffs are bringing the same claims against Alexander & Alexander in the instant lawsuit as were brought against Alexander & Alexander in the Kansas lawsuit. These claims are based on the same underlying facts. The causes of action are thus identical, even though the instant matter may require the Missouri court before which the suit was brought to apply Missouri law, while the Kansas lawsuit required the application of Kansas law. See Austin v. Super Valu Stores, 31 F.3d 615 (8th Cir.Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that res

A: holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court
B: recognizing that pleadings filed in federal court while the federal court has jurisdiction become part of the state court record on remand
C: recognizing twoyear statute of limitations for section 1981 claims filed in federal court in georgia
D: holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits
A.