With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court granted M & F’s motion and dismissed FATIC’s counterclaims, thus disposing of all outstanding claims in the action. In its order entering a judgment in favor of M & F, the trial court also set forth the schedule for the parties to submit evidence and arguments regarding FATIC’s request for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the ALAA. M & F subsequently moved the trial court for its own award of attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the ALAA as well. On August 14, 2012, M & F filed its notice of appeal, challenging the trial court’s August 25, 2011, order entering a summary judgment in favor of FATIC on M & F’s negligence, breach-of-contract, and bad-faith claims (appeal docketed as case no. 1111525). See Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti, 844 So.2d 1196, 1201 (Ala. 2002) (<HOLDING>). On September 7, 2012, FATIC filed its

A: holding that a summary judgment was final and appealable even though a request for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the alaa remained pending because any award of attorney fees is collateral to the judgment
B: holding that the requirement to serve a motion for attorney fees or costs within thirty days after filing of judgment applies even where the final judgment reserves jurisdiction to award same
C: holding a summary judgment to be final although motion to assess attorney fees remained pending because award of attorney fees is collateral to judgment
D: holding summary judgment order was not a final judgment because it did not dispose of the defendants claim for attorneys fees
A.