With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of seven months with no threat of continuity into the future was not substantially long enough to be considered a pattern. Finding that “... the predicate acts themselves were concluded in less than seven months”, the c 901, slip op., Kram, J., 1989 WL 146212 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1989) (activities occurring over ten months do not satisfy the continuity requirement for a closed-ended pattern); Fry v. General Motors Corp., 728 F.Supp. 455 (E.D.Mich.1989) (closed-ended period of one year and seven months was not sufficiently long enough to be considered a pattern.); Hutchinson v. Wickes, 726 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Ga.1989) (questioning whether a two year closed-ended period is of sufficient length.); Banks v. Wolk, No. 89-7219, slip op., Broderick, J., 1989 WL 153936 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 15, 1989) (<HOLDING>); Azurite Corp., Ltd. v. Amster & Co., 730

A: holding that a six month delay was unreasonable
B: holding that discharge six months after eeoc settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
C: holding that a jury could find a nineteen month period of racketeering activity sufficient to satisfy continuity requirement
D: holding that a six month closedended period did not satisfy the continuity requirement
D.