With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Corp., 767 F.Supp. 167, 170 (N.D.Ill.1991), the court considered the amended complaint filed even though the plaintiff never requested leave because the complaint “merely alleged additional theories of liability based on the same set of facts,” which the court would have allowed the plaintiff to re-file. But it was more procedurally expedient to consider the complaint filed than to strike the amended complaint and then grant leave to file another complaint that raised the exact same issues. And more important, the parties would be in the same position regardless of which procedure the court used. Similarly, in Straub v. Desa Industries, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 6, 9 (M.D.Pa.1980), an amended complaint alleging a new cause of action was deemed filed without a request 4, 987-88 (5th Cir.1989)(<HOLDING>). Thus, this exception does not apply and the

A: holding that potential loss of a contract constitutes irreparable injury
B: holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense constitutes clear legal prejudice
C: holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense
D: holding that the loss of a statute of limitations defense prejudices a defendant
B.