Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Trotter, No. 07 C 4749, 2012 WL 4060308, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 14, 2012) (citing First Nat'l Bank of Chicago v. Standard Bank & Trust, 172 F.3d 472, 480 (7th Cir.1999)). As for the accrual date, however, courts in this district have held that “it is reasonable for the [City] to have time to review plaintiffs’ fee petitions, like a client would have, without being charged interest.” Blackwell, 2012 WL 469962, at *12 (internal quotations omitted). Consistent with these rulings, the interest will accrue not from the date of judgment, but from “30 days after [P]laintiff submitted his fee information to the defense as required by Local Rule 54.3(d)(l)-(2).” Ragland, Slip Op., at 40. See also Judah M. v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, Dist. 299, 798 F.Supp.2d 942, 953-54 (N.D.Ill.2011) . Plaintiff submitted his Local Rule 54.3(d)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that prejudgment interest should accrue 30 days after fee petition was filed
B. holding that the court lacks jurisdiction where a complaint was filed more than 30 days after the filing of the summons
C. holding that 120 days notice was satisfied by 30 days work plus 90 days pay
D. holding that petitioner was dili gent for equitable tolling purposes where petitioner filed state petition two months after conviction was final and filed federal petition seven days after discovering state had denied petition on the merits
E. holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.