Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Dodd-Frank delayed the effective date of Title XIV of the Act. Dodd-Frank, Pub. Law No. 111-203, § 1400(c); 124 Stat. 1376, 2136. Thus, the Dodd-Frank changes and resulting regulations are not relevant to this case. 6 . As discussed above, Dodd-Frank made changes to RESPA, including reducing this period to 30 days. Dodd-Frank, Pub. Law No. 111-203, § 1463; 124 Stat. 1376, 2184. As the QWR in this case was sent in January of 2011 and Dodd-Frank was enacted in July of 2010, one might think that Chase should have responded within 30, rather than 60, days. However, § 1400(c) of Dodd-Frank delayed the effective date of Title XIV of the Act and with it, this 60-day to 30-day change. Dodd-Frank, cv-13622, 2011 WL 5375375, *2-3, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128455, *8 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 7, 2011) . In any case, decisions from other district
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unable to respond constitutes no response
B. holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice
C. holding that noaction clause barred suit against servicer for negligence
D. holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case
E. holding that failure to respond in accord with  2605e2a b or c is a single respa violation because the statute provides a servicer with disjunctive response options not that a servicer has unfettered discretion in how to respond
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.