Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
whether or not a certificate has been filed. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS The hearing officer found that even if the limitations period began to run before the certificate was filed, the period should be tolled during the time the city was attempting to obtain worker’s signature on the certificate. Worker’s refusal to execute the certificate, according to the hearing officer, provided good cause for the city’s failure to file its claim against the fund within the limitations period. Tolling of a limitations period is normally accomplished by statute. See NMSA 1978, §§ 37-1-9 to 37-1-12 (tolling for absence or concealment of a debtor, minority, incapacity, death of claimant, and stay of action pursuant to injunction); cf. Hardin v. Farris, 87 N.M. 143, 530 P.2d 407 (Ct.App.1974) . As the Hardin case illustrates, some fault on
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it may not
B. holding that tolling may occur even in absence of statute if defendant prevented plaintiff from knowing of claim by fraudulently concealing it or failing to disclose it when its existence is hidden from plaintiff
C. holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel
D. holding that it is not
E. holding by new jersey supreme court that a plaintiff may recover from a spoliator even if the plaintiff prevails in the original suit
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.