With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an overarching, all-embracing maximum time period to attack a fraudulent transfer, no matter whether brought under UFTA or otherwise.” Macedo v. Bosio, 86 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1051 n. 4, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 (2001). “[T]he maximum elapsed time for a suit under either the UFTA or otherwise is seven years after the transfer.” Id. (emphasis in original); accord. Roach, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1199. This conclusion is supported by the plain language of section 3439.09(c), which states that “a cause of action with respect to a fraudulent transfer ... is extinguished.” Cal. Civ.Code § 3439.09(c) (emphasis added). Therefore, Plaintiff cannot attack a fraudulent transfer through an unjust enrichment claim without satisfying the requirements of section 3439.09(c). See, e.g., Forum Ins., 62 Fed.Appx. at 152 (<HOLDING>); Roach, 369 F.Supp.2d at 1199 (holding that

A: holding that section 343909c cannot be tolled by california code of civil procedure  351
B: recognizing that although civil conspiracy is a separate actionable tort a conspiracy claim is barred where the underlying tort is barred by the applicable statute of limitations
C: holding that plaintiffs civil conspiracy claim was barred by section 343909c
D: holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication
C.