Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
instead suggest that the debtor faces the high stakes of litigation and therefore should cooperate. Accordingly, after reconsideration, this Court affirms its prior Ruling granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on his claim under § 1692e(5). B. The Remaining FDCPA Claims Under §§ 1692e(2)(A) and (10) Having affirmed its prior Ruling on Plaintiffs § 1692e(5) claim, this Court also affirms its prior Ruling granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on his claims arising under §§ 1692e(2)(A) and (10). Courts have long held that after finding a valid claim under a more specific subsection of § 1692e, such as § 1692e(5), further analysis under § 1692e(10) is “somewhat dupli-cative.” Kapeluschnik, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22883, at *26; see Clomon, 988 F.2d at 1321; Pipiles, 886 F.2d at 25-26 . See generally Gaetano v. Payco of Wis., Inc.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket
B. holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice
C. holding that the the vagueness of the language in a notice suggested defendant would take actions it did not intend to take and therefore violated both  1692e5 and 10
D. recognizing that the government agreed not to take a position
E. holding that where it was erroneous for the district court to take judicial notice it certainly cannot be said that such notice was mandatory and therefore ire 201d is inapplicable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.