Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Id. at 939 ("The Act was meant to shield debtors from abusive collection practices, but it was never intended to shift the balance of power between debtors and creditors such that a debt collector cannot work with a debtor's attorney to settle claims without exposing itself to liability."). 9 . Wolpoff argues it is immune from liability under the TDCA because "a lawyer is 'quali-fiedly immune' from civil liability, with respect to non-clients, for actions taken in connection with representing a client in litigation.” Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 8. To the contrary, the TDCA expressly makes actionable misleading representations made in judicial proceedings. Tex Fin.Code § 392.304(a)(8); see also Gibson v. Grupo de Ariel, LLC, No. 4:05-CV-415-BE, 2006 WL 42369, *4 (N.D.Tex. Jan.9, 2006)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit
B. holding that where the violation of the fdcpa was the filing of a lawsuit the statule of limitations begins to run on the date of filing
C. holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit
D. holding that the district court used the wrong legal standard when calculating restitution and remanding for further proceedings without discussing sufficiency of the evidence under the wrong standard
E. holding that filing a lawsuit in the wrong court is actionable under the tdca
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.