With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims because it seeks rescission of stock sold to the Plan beginning October 20, 2001; 14 months before the Tolling Agreement ends limitations. In response, Plaintiffs allege compliance with the one-year statute of limitations due to equitable estoppel and equitable tolling allegations. The Court finds that equitable estoppel and equitable tolling doctrines cannot save the Plaintiffs’ Complaint because they are inapplicable under the one-year limitations period. Although equitable tolling attaches to every federal cause of action as a general rule, it cannot apply in the face of contrary congressional intent. Hill v. Texaco, Inc., 825 F.2d 333, 334 (11th Cir.1987); Barton v. Peterson, 733 F.Supp. 1482, 1490 (N.D.Ga.1990); see also Childers v. U.S., 442 F.2d 1299, (5th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). Congress specifically included a discovery

A: holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity
B: holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity
C: holding that waiver of federal tort claims act sovereign immunity is conditioned upon strict compliance with exhaustion requirement
D: holding that strict compliance is not required
A.