Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Clouse, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that service had been completed for purposes of the savings statute when a process server served the defendant’s wife and office manager at the defendant’s office after she represented herself as her husband’s agent, but in fact was not. 274 S.W.3d at 345-46. Here, the Barners’ attorney sent the complaint and summons for T/C LLC by certified mail to the wrong registered agent, which accepted service on T/C LLC’s behalf and sent a return receipt to the Barners’ attorney showing that service had been completed. This case is much closer to Cole and Clouse than to cases in which the Arkansas courts have held that the savings statute did not apply. See, e.g., Posey v. St. Bernard’s Healthcare, Inc., 365 Ark. 154, 226 S.W.3d 757, 761, 765-66 (2006) ; Hicks v. Clark, 316 Ark. 148, 870 S.W.2d 750,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs did not complete service for purposes of the savings statute when they served the defendant with a complaint signed by an unlicensed attorney a nullity under arkansas law and made no attempt to serve the defendant with the amended complaint
B. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
C. holding defendant waived complaint
D. holding that the plaintiff did not complete service when she made no attempt to serve the defendant within the time required by the arkansas procedural rules
E. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.