With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Systems, Inc., 665 F.2d 1066, 1068 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1981) (using D.C. law in contractual dispute). Two doctrines might conceivably be advanced to support the argument that the Superior Court filing tolled the statute of limitations with respect to the suit in the federal courts. The first is the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which holds that wrongful and affirmative conduct by a defendant may toll the statute of limitations when that conduct causes the plaintiff justifiably to refrain from filing suit. See Alley v. Dodge Hotel, 551 F.2d 442, 446-47 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) (setting forth standard but holding plaintiff failed to show necessary conduct by defendant), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 958, 97 S.Ct. 2684, 53 L.Ed. 277 (1977); Kron v. Young & Simon, Inc., 265 A.2d 293, 295 (D.C.1970) (<HOLDING>). The appellant goes to some lengths to

A: holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact
B: holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
C: holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim
D: holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted
C.