Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Appellants’ decision to bring the state court actions while the federal proceeding remained open evinces a dilatory motive. The obvious inference is that Appellants viewed the federal case as a “placeholder” that they could revisit depending on the outcome of their state cases. And regardless of Appellants’ intent, their decision to bring two state court actions while missing in action from the present case prejudiced Appellees. Appel-lees were forced to defend numerous cases in separate jurisdictions simultaneously, and Appellants’ absenteeism in the case below left Appellees alone to comply with the district court’s pre-trial deadlines. In sum, the court’s dismissal was not an abuse of discretion. Lewis v. Sherriff's Dept. Bossier Parish, 478 Fed.Appx. 809, 816 (5th Cir.2012) , cert. denied, — U.S. ---, 133 S.Ct. 865, 184
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the circumstances presented viz plaintiffs failure to prosecute for months following suggestion of death but with no discernible prejudice to defendant dismissal without prejudice was appropriate sanction
B. holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where case delayed for more than a few months
C. holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice
D. holding that the parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment
E. holding that dismissal for discovery violations was an extreme remedy but warranted under the facts of the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.