With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 30, 2009 dismissal order and reinstated the cause. New Hampshire later filed a petition for writ of mandamus, arguing that the trial court lacked plenary power to reinstate the cause. See In re New Hampshire Ins. Co., No. 02-12-00281-CV, 2012 WL 3264392, at *1 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 13, 2012, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). This court agreed with New Hampshire (notwithstanding that the cause had been abated when the trial court dismissed it) and conditionally granted the petition. Id. at *1-2. Although our holding meant that the cause was not reinstated in March 2011, Magellan later invoked the Texas trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by filing the second amended petition in December 2011. See Leach v. Brown, 156 Tex. 66, 68-69, 292 S.W.2d 329, 330-31 (1956) (<HOLDING>). We therefore observe no jurisdictional

A: holding that the filing of an amended petition in the same cause in which a final judgment had already been entered was like an original petition sufficient to invoke the trial courts jurisdiction
B: holding that a petitioner may amend a habeas petition rather than filing a second or successive petition when the first petition has not yet reached a final decision
C: holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition
D: holding that after original petition had been properly served on defendant failure to serve amended petition was not error since it contained only insignificant changes
A.