Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law,” or includes factual contentions that do not have evidentiary support. Pursuant to Fed.R.CivP. 11, “the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion.” Both the Federal Rule and Super. Ct. Dom. Rel. R. 11 state that sanctions may include a monetary amount to cover the “expenses” that have been “incurred” by the opposing party, including “reasonable ... attorney’s fees” or “a reasonable attorney’s fee.” Based on the language of Fed.R.C regarding similar provisions allowing for sanctions. See Alpert, Goldberg, Butler, Norton & Weiss, P.C. v. Quinn, 410 N.J.Super. 510, 983 A.2d 604, 623-26 (App.Div.2009) ; Musaelian v. Adams, 45 Cal.4th 512, 87
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding attorneys fees not available to pro se attorney litigant in a federal freedom of information act action
B. holding that under rule 13 of the texas rules of civil procedure which precludes bringing a groundless suit for purposes of harassment a pro se attorney litigant is not entitled to attorneys fees because an attorneyclient relationship was the predicate for that particular sanction
C. holding that new jersey rule patterned on fed r civ p 11 precludes a pro se attorney litigant from receiving attorneys fees because such fees are not actually incurred
D. holding that a pro se litigant who is an attorney is not entitled to fees under  1988
E. holding that by choosing the words any actual expenses including attorneys fees incurred congress did not intend to remove the discretion of the district court to award fees in cases such as contingent fee or pro bono cases where the client has not actually incurred the obligation to pay her attorneys fees
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.