With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 10 F.Supp.2d 138, 157 (D.Conn.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 196 F.3d 409 (2d Cir.1999). Pardee argues that the New Allegations are factually distinct from the Original Complaint, but it is clear from a reading of the Amended Complaint, in the light most favorable to the Committee, see supra at 227, that the Committee alleges that preceding and through the 1997 LBO, Pardee engaged in a series of misdeeds and fraudulent acts that constituted a larger scheme of deceit. Accordingly, the earlier conclusion of this court that the Committee has sufficiently alleged fraudulent concealment is binding on Pardee’s objection to the New Allegations. See Andreo v. Friedlander, Gaines, Cohen, Rosenthal & Rosenberg, 660 F.Supp. 1362 (D.Conn.1987) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, even without a consideration of

A: holding that engle established the conduct elements of a fraudulent concealment cause of action
B: holding that the plaintiffs mere failure to execute on a judgment the only allegedly fraudulent act is not fraudulent concealment
C: holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action
D: holding that an earlier finding that allegations of fraudulent concealment were sufficient was dispositive in the absence of a reason to revisit it for purposes of a similar motion against an amended complaint
D.