Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
not file a reply in response to the Medical Center’s answer and affirmative defenses, the Mays have waived any argument that the action is barred by the statute of limitations because a misnomer occurred and/or because there was an identity of interest between the Auxiliary and the Medical Center. However, the Mays filed a response to the Medical Center’s motion for summary judgment wherein they raised the misnomer issue and asserted, somewhat inartfully, that the Medical Center had been acting as the Auxiliary when it engaged in discovery. And the transcript of the hearing reveals that the trial court was clearly aware of all of the arguments being made. Thus we are not persuaded by the Medical Center’s preservation argument. Cf. Corya v. Sanders, 76 So.3d 31, 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) . Further, the Medical Center never raised the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant waived reliance on new york law because 1 she relied on florida law in answer and affirmative defenses and failed to file any response or affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment and 2 there was no transcript of the motion hearing provided
B. holding that under florida law a court hearing a case on a motion for a summary judgment can only consider those issues raised by the pleadings
C. holding that arguments not presented to the district court in response to a motion for summary judgment are waived
D. recognizing that a partys lack of response to a motion or argument therein is grounds for the district court to assume opposition to the motion is waived and grant the motion
E. holding that arguments not raised in opposition to a motion for summary judgment are waived
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.