Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and $100.00 in process server fees, see Bill of Costs, ECF No. 23-7. Of this total, WMATA contests only the $100.00 process server fees. Def.'s Opp'n at 5 (citing Zdunek v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 100 F.R.D. 689, 692 (D.D.C.1983); Harvey v. Mohammed, 951 F.Supp.2d 47, 73 (D.D.C.2013)). As the plaintiff rightly notes, see PL’s Reply at 10-12, however, the non-binding authority relied upon by WMATA in contesting reimbursement of these costs did not consider tins Court's local rules, which explicitly provide that "[c]osts of service of summons and complaint” are taxable. LCvR 54.1(d)(2). Consistent with this Court’s local rules, reimbursement of these costs to the plaintiff will be ordered. Accord Law Office G.A. Lambert and Assoc. v. Davidoff, 72 F.Supp.3d 110, 120 (D.D.C.2014) ; Youssef v. FBI, 762 F.Supp.2d 76, 85
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding costs of translating summons and complaint into german necessary to file this complaint and  therefore taxable
B. holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons
C. holding defendant waived complaint
D. holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing
E. holding that a formal summons and complaint were unnecessary because the motion before the court is not an independent action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.