Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to present her reasons to the court as to why she should be granted a continuance. The scheduling order Ray relies on did not satisfy the requirements under the rule. Other than containing the date the petition was filed, there was no indication in the scheduling order alerting the judge that the case was subject to imminent dismissal. Simply agreeing on a trial date without including “grounds for continuance” circumvents the requirements under rule 215.1. Ray had the burden of keeping her case alive and avoiding an automatic dismissal under rule 215.1. See Greif v. K-Mart Corp., 404 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Iowa 1987). Accordingly, the stipulation as to a trial date does not save her case from automatic dismissal under rule 215.1. Compare Butner v. Beyer, 593 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Iowa 1999) . We find, therefore, this case was correctly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it was filed without proper authority
B. holding that trial counsel did not abuse its discretion by denying a continuance where appellant failed to specify the evidence which might have been revealed if the continuance had been granted and counsel had been afforded the opportunity to investigate further
C. holding district court was without authority to dismiss the case on rule 2151 grounds when an application had been filed and a continuance ordered
D. holding that district court had no authority to reopen appeal period when motion was filed beyond 180day limit
E. recognizing district court application of the same rule
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.