With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". now before the court is whether the alleged taking occurred before or after December 7, 2003. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that the complaint in this case was filed more than six years after the accrual of the takings claims raised by plaintiffs, and that those claims are therefore untimely. IV. Timeliness of Plaintiffs’ Claims A suit for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment must be filed in this court within six years of the date on which the takings claim first accrues. 28 U.S.C. § 2501. The United States Supreme Court has held that the six-year statute of limitations is an absolute jurisdictional limitation that cannot be waived by the government. John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130, 133-34, 128 S.Ct. 750, 169 L.Ed.2d 591 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs filed the instant suit on December

A: holding that the aedpa statute of limitations is not jurisdictional
B: holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
C: holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
D: holding that the filing deadline under title vii is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling
B.