Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held that a minor’s cause of action against a defendant, who was added two years after the original complaint was filed, was not barred by the statute of limitations, even though the minor’s legal guardian timely filed the original complaint. Brooks v. Gunn, 667 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984). The court explained that because the minor was still under the disability of minority under Tennessee Code An notated section 28-1-106, “the statute of limitations in a situation [such] as this has not begun to run against the minor. If the statut 185 (1976) (adopting majority rule that appointment of guardian does not commence running of statute of limitations tolled on account of infancy or incompetence); Tzolov v. Int’l Jet Leasing, Inc., 232 Cal.App.3d 117, 283 Cal.Rptr. 314, 317 (1991) ; Morgan v. Amerada Hess Corp., 357 So.2d 1040,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appointment of guardian over incompetent adult does not remove legal disability so as to halt tolling and commence running of statute of limitations
B. recognizing that the person appointed as a guardian ad litem may not have interest adverse to those of the ward
C. holding that tolling statute applicable to incompetent plaintiffs continues in effect in spite of appointment of guardian ad litem
D. holding that washingtons statute tolls the statute of limitations for a legally incompetent person notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian this is so because the right to the tolling statute vests in the incompetent person not in the guardian from this premise it follows that the guardians subsequent actions on the incompetent persons behalf should have no additional effect upon the statute of limitations unless they result in res judicata
E. recognizing that upon request a district court may remove the guardian ad litem andor  appoint another guardian ad litem to protect the childrens interests
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.