With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". University of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston v. Estate of Darla Blackmon ex rel. Shultz, 195 S.W.3d 98, 100-01 (Tex.2006) (per curiam) (explaining that rule 162 protects substantive right of party to be heard on claim for affirmative relief after nonsuit and also provides trial court with discretion to defer signing order of dismissal for reasonable time to hold hearings on matters collateral to merits). 5 . The Polanskys have requested that we render an order tolling the statute of limitations on their claims from June 30, 2011 until the date of this opinion. We lack jurisdiction to decide whether the statute of limitations would be tolled and will not issue an advisory opinion on that issue. See O'Neal v. Ector Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 221 S.W.3d 286, 291-92 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2006) (<HOLDING>), aff'd on other grounds, 251 S.W.3d 50

A: holding that declaratory judgment was inappropriate where after exhausting administrative remedies a contractor would have to bring separate actions against the state and other parties in state court
B: holding limitations issue would not be a ripe controversy until party refiled claims after exhausting administrative remedies and opposing party raised limitations as defense
C: holding that a party may gain judicial review without exhausting its administrative remedies where pursuit of administrative remedies would be futile where strict compliance would cause irreparable harm and where the applicable statute is alleged to be void on its face
D: holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court
B.