With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". holding that SES’s breach of contract claim lacks merit renders the Prompt Payment Act inapplicable. The trial court therefore correctly rejected SES’s Prompt Payment Act Claim. CONCLUSION We grant SES’s motion for rehearing and deny all other pending motions as moot. We hold that (1) SES failed to raise a material fact issue that the City’s contractual breach caused damages to SES, and (2) SES’s claim for interest under the Prompt Payment Act fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Brookshire Brothers, Inc. v. Smith, 176 S.W.3d 30, 33 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (op. on reh’g) ( c. v. City of El Paso, 879 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1994, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 3 . This is the third appeal of this case.

A: holding that trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether city violated prevailing wage rate statute by failing to use one of two methods listed in statute to determine prevailing rate
B: holding that in order to determine whether disqualification of plaintiffs attorney is appropriate because of a previous attorneyclient relationship he had with the defendant the court must determine whether confidential information was passed from client to attorney
C: holding that to determine whether minimum wage law has been violated one must divide total weekly pay received by total number of hours worked
D: holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine
A.