With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". New Mexico Supreme Court reasoned: A party who has slept on his rights should not be permitted to harass the opposing party with a pending action for an unreasonable time. Rule 41(e) specifically addresses this concern. Holding that a Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice tolls the statute for the time the case was pending could conceivably extend the time for bringing the suit indefinitely; the plaintiff could continuously refile but never act to bring the case to its conclusion. Furthermore, the courts should not distinguish between a plaintiff who takes no action before the limitations period expires and a plaintiff who files a complaint before the period expires but who thereafter takes no action .... King, 646 P.2d at 1245. ¶28. In Sluka, the Supreme Court of Nebraska reached 78) (<HOLDING>); Owens v. Weingarten’s, 442 F.Supp. 497, 498

A: holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit
B: holding that although the filing of suit and service of citation interrupt the running of the statute its dismissal for want of prosecution will have the same effect as if the suit had never been filed
C: holding that the initial filing of a suit later voluntarily dismissed is not the effective date of a second suit because a voluntary dismissal does not toll or affect in any way the continuous running of the applicable statutory time period
D: holding that taxpayers filing of a second set of claims after the first set had been disallowed had no effect on the running of the statute of limitations
B.