Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
dispute. 342 So.2d at 106. Sunshine Associates filed various defensive pleadings including an answer with affirmative defenses. Sunshine Associates also responded to discovery requests. Id. It was only after B & H Sales moved for summary judgment that Sunshine Associates revealed that the correct name of the defendant was The Fusco Corporation, which had been doing business as Sunshine Associates. Id. at 106-07. On those facts, we concluded that applying the statute of limitations to bar the amended complaint would be “manifestly unjust” because the mistake in naming the defendant was merely a misnomer. Id. at 107. Thus, we held that the amended complaint related back to the original pleading. Id.; see also Schwartz v. Metro Limo, Inc., 683 So.2d 201, 203-04 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ; Galuppi v. Viele, 232 So.2d 408, 410-11 (Fla.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion
B. holding that where incorrectly named defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an answer with affirmative defenses and actively participated in discovery it led the plaintiff to believe that the correct defendant had been sued and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to amend its complaint to correct the misnomer
C. holding that plaintiff failed to state a securities fraud claim based on a duty to correct since an alleged duly to correct did not appear anywhere in the amended complaint and did not enter the case until wright mentioned it for the first time in her opposition memoranda to the motion to dismiss
D. holding that a misnomer does not render a summary judgment void provided the intention to sue the correct defendant is evident from the pleadings and process such that the defendant could not have been misled
E. holding that the defendant could not raise affirmative defenses initially in its dispositive motion but remanding the case to the trial court to determine if leave to amend answer to incorporate affirmative defenses was appropriate so that the defendant could then properly raise those defenses in its dispositive motion
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.