Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1139 (1972). More recently, we have required a “clear expression” of legislative intent before installing a private right of action in a statute otherwise silent on the matter. State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220, 227 (Colo. 1992) (discussing Quintano, 495 P.2d at 1138-39 and Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Moreland, 764 P.2d 812, 818-19 (Colo. 1988)). 2. The Samelmplied-Private-Right-of-Action Analysis Applies to Governmental and Non-governmental Defendants ¶ 23 We have expressed the same concerns no matter the legal theory and no matter the defendant. Although our implied-private-right-of-action cases typically concern torts, e.g., Moldovan, 842 P.2d at 226-27, we have analyzed other implied statutory claims as well, e.g., Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Pfeifer, 190 Colo. 275, 546 P.2d 946, 948-49 (1976) . We similarly hesitate to imply a private
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment
B. recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict
C. holding that the court may set aside agency action only in extremely limited circumstances
D. holding that family courts conclusions will not be set aside if supported by findings
E. holding statute did not create claim to set aside improper conveyance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.