Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fair opportunity to defend while witnesses are available and the evidence is fresh in their minds. See Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Pool, 124 S.W.3d 188,199 (Tex.2003); Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex.1988). Statutes of limitations also prevent fraudulent and stale claims from surprising the other party. See Pool, 124 S.W.3d at 199; Hallaway v. Thompson, 148 Tex. 471, 478, 226 S.W.2d 816, 820 (1950). However, allowing a “John Doe” petition to toll limitations would expand the period for filing claims indefinitely, discourage prompt investigation and resolution of claims, and potentially deny defendants otherwise available defenses. See Moore v. Michelin Tire Co., 603 N.W.2d 513, 523 (S.D.1999); see also Grobe v. McBryde, 105 Ariz. 577, 468 P.2d 936, 939-40 (1970) ; Lunn v. American Maint. Corp., 96 Nev. 787,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the concealment of ones identity does not toll the running of the statute of limitations
B. holding that under the law of the district of columbia the filing of a complaint does not toll the statute of limitations on a counterclaim
C. recognizing that statute of limitations may be tolled indefinitely for legally incompetent persons
D. holding that duress toll to statute of limitations under state law had no application to federal rico statute of limitations
E. recognizing potential abuse inherent in permitting the use of fictitious names to toll limitations indefinitely while the plaintiff perfects his case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.