Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that Ocwen’s reporting was “incomplete or inaccurate” regarding his personal liability for the foreclosure deficiency stated a claim under CCRAA § 1785.25. We note that unlike the company in Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, which faced only the potential of the debtor raising a statute of limitations defense, Ocwen itself had made an election of remedies when it sold Kuns’s home in a non-judicial foreclosure, thereby changing the collectibility of the debt. 681 F.Supp.2d 1143 (N.D.Cal.2010). The anti-deficiency laws’ protection against post-foreclosure personal liability is complete and nonwaivable, in contrast to the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations that the debtor in Wang could raise. See DeBerard Props. v. Lim, 20 Cal.4th 659, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 292, 976 P.2d 843 (1999) . Because Kuns’ complaint stated a claim under
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the statutory scheme of two federal laws was not void for vagueness and did not violate equal protection or due process even though the defendants conduct violated both laws
B. holding that segregation in public education is a denial of equal protection of the laws
C. holding that antideficiency laws protection is nonwaivable
D. holding that a temporarily totally disabled person may invoke protection under disability discrimination laws
E. holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.