With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Butler v. Ross, 836 S.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (five months); Allen v. Bentley Labs., Inc., 538 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (six months)). Sharp contends, however, that she waited so long from the time of filing suit to procure citation and effect service on Kroger because the parties were working together to resolve the case. Sharp asserts that a reasonably prudent person would have continued working with Kroger “in an effort to save the cost of citation and service.” However, Sharp presented no evidence that the parties agreed to delay service during settlement negotiations. Unilaterally waiting to serve a defendant during settlement negotiations is not due diligence. Cf. Belleza-Gonzalez, 57 S.W.3d at 12 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that Sharp’s inaction for over

A: recognizing that a 11 evidence must be relevant to be admissible
B: holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied
C: recognizing the same rule in texas courts
D: holding that an agreement to delay in effecting service must meet the requirements of texas rule of evidence 11
D.