Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
continued the May 9, 2005, trial setting. The statute of limitations has expired. Estrada does not object to allowing Martinez to amend her pleading to substitute the appropriate party. Cornell and Estrada have indicated that they intend to assert the statute of limitation defense should Martinez seek to add the proper party in Estrada’s stead. LAW REGARDING ADMISSIONS AND MOTIONS TO AMEND Rule 8(d)’s purpose is to “apprise the plaintiff of the allegations in the complaint that stand admitted and will not be in issue at trial and those that are contested and will require proof to be established to enable plaintiff to prevail.” Yamell v. Roberts, 66 F.R.D. 417, 423 (E.D.Pa.1975)(citing 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fe citing Meschino v. N. Am. Drager, Inc., 841 F.2d at 435-36). Federal pleading is not a game of skill and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that parties are bound by admissions in pleadings
B. holding that it could not disregard the express pleadings alleging negligence by specific parties
C. holding that parties are generally bound by the stipulations they agree to
D. holding that admissions purportedly made by an accused by way of his agents or attorneys in pleadings from a civil case are not admissible in a criminal case unless shown to have been authorized by him
E. holding that parties are bound by the stipulated facts in a pretrial order
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.