Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
abused its discretion in dismissing the case for the failure of that condition. Mulino Cafe responds that the court’s grant of leave is irrelevant and the court did not err because the case was not at issue as of the October 15 deadline, reasoning that Mulino Cafe did not make an appearance until after the deadline and UTCR 7.020(3) requires all parties to appear for a case to be at issue. Moreover, defendant argues, the trial court’s determination that the cas f that the case be at issue or in default by October 15. Yet, the court’s subsequent grant of leave to amend the complaint took the ability to comply with that condition out of plaintiffs hands. In such circumstances, the failure of the condition cannot reasonably be attributed to plaintiff alone. Cf. Lambert, 148 Or App at 376 . Consequently, we reject Mulino Cafe’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case
B. holding that the court abused its discretion where the delay cannot not reasonably be attributed to the plaintiff alone
C. holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend after a delay of eight months
D. holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact
E. holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.