Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
relates back to the date of the original pleading when ... the claim ... asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2) (emphasis added). See also 1966 and 1991 Advisory Committee Notes (explaining that the relation back rule was intended to remedy prior misconceptions that amendment of a pleading to correct the misnomer or misdescription of a defendant in an existing action “would amount to the commencement of a new proceeding”). Yet, the “relation back” reasoning does not apply with equal force to actions that are, in actuality, entirely new or separate proceedings. O’Donnell v. Vencor Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c)(2)) . Here, Plaintiff attempts to relate the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing
B. holding that plaintiff was not allowed to voluntarily withdraw her complaint after electing to have her complaint heard before an administrative law judge
C. holding that plaintiffs motion to amend her complaint to add her husband as a defendant did not relate back because her failure to sue her husband was not due to misnomer or mistake involving the identity of the proper party but because the law at the time of the complaint did not allow one spouse to sue another in tort
D. holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint
E. holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.