Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
depends in part on Carrington Gardens’ allegation that HUD’s declaring the 241 Loan in default was wrongful. Specifically, the reason later denials of financial requests constituted breaches of the Regulatory Agreements, according to Carring-ton Gardens, is that the denials were based on a wrongful declaration of default. To the extent that Carrington Gardens must prove that HUD wrongfully declared the 241 Loan in default in order to advance its theory of the case, Carrington Gardens’ claim is barred. Carrington Gardens attempts to avoid the statute of limitations problem by arguing that the “continuing claim” doctrine applies here. See Brown Park Estates, 127 F.3d at 1456-57; see also Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. v. Department of the Interior, 160 F.3d 602, 606 n. 4 (10th Cir.1998) . Carrington Gardens emphasizes that its theory
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the artful pleading doctrine in practice is subsumed by the complete preemption doctrine
B. recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time
C. recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results
D. recognizing doctrine
E. recognizing separation of powers doctrine
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.