Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claim on June 21, 2012, the claim was effectively denied on August 28, 2008, when the administrator failed to act on the claim within three months after presentment. See 15 V.I.C. § 421 (directing the executor or administrator to make distributions in three-month intervals). Therefore, Ottley’s claim had ripened by the time the Superior Court dismissed it. The Superior Court’s dismissal of the action on the claim for reimbursement after it had ripened was pointless as Ottley could have promptly refiled the action. Rohn v. People, 57 V.I. 637, 642 n.4 (V.I. 2012) (observing that “subsequent events may ripen a prematurely filed appeal” (quoting Harvey v. Christopher, 55 V.I. 565, 571 (2009)); see Alejandro-Ortiz v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth., 872 F. Supp. 2d 133, 136 (D.P.R. 2012) . Because Ottley could have immediately refiled
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appellants could have amended as of right after they received the motion to dismiss and prior to the trial courts decision
B. holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay
C. holding that because the plaintiff had not perfected service within 120 days of filing the complaint the complaint was subject to mandatory dismissal
D. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons
E. holding that courts decision to dismiss the action because it was prematurely filed was pointless because the matter automatically ripened after 90 days and plaintiff could just refile complaint
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.