Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to use the word "rendition” in the statute of limitations. 5 . This rule is clearly analogous to, although not identical to, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. 6 . Furthermore, under this same body of Michigan law, we must reject the defendants’ assertion that ARCO failed to timely "commence" the instant renewal action (and toE the statute of limitations) because of aUegedly improper service of process by someone not an "officer” for pin-poses of the Michigan tolling statute, Mich. Comp.Laws Aim. § 600.5856(c) (West Supp. 1995). Michigan Court Rule 2.101(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 both state that an action is "commenced" when a complaint is filed with the court, and that rule controls insofar as it conflicts with the toEing statute. See Buscaino, 189 N.W.2d at 205-06
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a complaint filed within three years of an accident complied with the michigan court rules and was not barred by the statute of limitations even though service was made more than three years after the accident
B. holding that the statute of limitations for an attorneys fees action under  1415e4b is three years
C. holding new mexico statute of limitations for filing a  1983 action is three years
D. holding that a lender was barred from recovering repayment for loans made more than three years before filing suit where obligations without agreed repayment dates were deemed payable on demand and where the statute of limitations applicable to oral contracts was three years
E. holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.