Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a default final judgment, the moving party must show three things: (1) the failure to file a responsive pleading was the result of excusable neglect; (2) the moving party has a meritorious defense; and (3) the moving party acted with due diligence in seeking relief from the default.”), review denied, 969 So.2d 1011 (Fla.2007); Geer v. Jacobsen, 880 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (A meritorious defense “must be asserted either by a pleading or in an affidavit, and a general denial is insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious defense.”); Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So.2d 300 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that a seven-week delay in seeking relief from default judgment was unreasonable); Herrick v. Se. Bank, 512 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ; see also Fischer v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding action did not arise under the patent laws
B. holding that excusable neglect cannot arise from negligence of counsel
C. holding that parties to contract cannot prevent borrowed employee status from arising by providing in contract that it cannot arise
D. holding that a bailment may arise from an oral contract
E. holding that a special relationship may arise from the factual circumstances of a particular case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.