With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2) demonstrate a lack of prejudice to the defendants in gathering evidence for the second claim; and (3) evince good faith and reasonable conduct in filing the second claim. Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131, 1137-38 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Without making the three-part inquiry we approved in Daviton, the district court held that “Plaintiffs administrative claim is therefore of no aid to him with respect to alleged equitable tolling, because it concerned wrongs other than the one he now seeks to address.” But this is precisely the type of “threshold” inquiry we disapproved of when we “reject[ed] Fobbs’ [v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439 (9th Cir.1994) ] suggestion to the contrary.” Daviton, 241 F.3d at 1141. See also Cervantes, 5 F.3d at 1275-76 (<HOLDING>). Tene’s administrative claim identified the

A: holding that we lacked jurisdiction to review the veterans courts determination that equitable tolling did not apply in the case before it
B: holding that equitable tolling principles apply to suits against the united states in the same manner as they apply to private parties
C: holding that it was error to dismiss after a threshold inquiry that equitable tolling did not apply as a matter of law because the prior administrative and state court proceedings were not substantially similar to this action
D: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
C.