Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that portion of the agreement over twenty years ago, the Tennessee U.D.C. knew of Vanderbilt’s noncompliance, and the Tennessee U.D.C. did not file suit to enforce the agreement. The agreement regarding the name of the dormitory is another matter. Vanderbilt did not publicly announce its intention to rename Confederate Memorial Hall until September 2002, and the Tennessee U.D.C. filed its lawsuit seeking to enforce the portion of the agreement pertaining to the name of the dormitory well within any applicable statute of limitations. It would be fatuous to assert that the Tennessee U.D.C.’s delay of less than two months in filing the lawsuit was "unreasonable” or that Vanderbilt was somehow prejudiced in the interval. Dennis Joslin Co. v. Johnson, 138 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003) . Vanderbilt did not renew this particular
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing laches as an equitable defense to a motion to reopen
B. recognizing laches as an affirmative defense
C. holding that laches is an affirmative defense
D. holding that where defense of laches was not pleaded denial of equitable relief on grounds of laches was error
E. holding that a laches defense must be premised on an unreasonable delay that has somehow prejudiced the party asserting the defense
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.