With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". similar result in a case where the lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution and the exact same case was refiled. Sluka, 425 N.W.2d at 892. The Nebraska Supreme Court stated: We know of no rule in Nebraska which declares that the running of a statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of an action so as to permit a second filing more than, in this case, [four] years after the trespass.... To interpret the law in that fashion would create a situation in which a plaintiff could file, have dismissed, refile, and have dismissed, an action, ad infinitum. Id. ¶ 29. Other jurisdictions similarly have found that the statute does not toll where cases are dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. See Suppeland v. Nilz, 128 Ariz. 48, 628 P.2d 832, 835 (Ariz. Ct.App.1980) (<HOLDING>); Shaw v. Corcoran, 570 S.W.2d 96, 98

A: holding neither a lack of prejudice to the defendant nor the running of the statute of limitations constitutes good cause
B: holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense
C: holding that plaintiffs suddenly discovered affection for arbitration came too late when the claim was made after the action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute
D: holding that when an action is dismissed without prejudice because of a failure to prosecute the interruption in the running of the statute is considered as never having occurred
D.