With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (and because, in addition, the circuit court intended for her to be able to pursue her statutory claims), the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her motion. That issue was not addressed in Gas-kins. Moreover, the Bank’s assumption that any amendment to Ms. Walls’s complaint would have been either a futile attempt to revive a non-viable wrongful discharge claim or the bringing of a new cause of action that would not have related back begs the central question whether the relation back doctrine would have applied. We note, because it bears on the Bank’s second non-preservation argument, that whether a claim stated in an amended complaint relates back to the original complaint is a question of law. See Chambers v. Seghetti, 107 Md.App. 536, 540-41, 668 A.2d 1006 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the order denying the motion to

A: holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing
B: holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations
C: holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint
D: holding that amended complaint related back where the facts alleged in the original complaint clearly put defendants on notice as to the conduct  at issue in this action
C.