With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". pending in that court, and her instigation of a separate action in Russell Circuit Court runs afoul of § 6-5-440. The former husband has met the requirements for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, including demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief he seeks; therefore, we grant his petition. The Russell Circuit Court is directed to enter an order dismissing the former wife’s contempt petition. PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. PITTMAN, MOORE, and DONALDSON, JJ., concur. THOMPSON, P.J., concurs in the result, without writing. 1 . In her answer to the former husband’s petition for the writ of mandamus, the former wife does not refute the factual assertions in the former husband’s petition, so we accept those assertions as true. See Ex parte Turner, 840 So.2d 132, 134-35 (Ala.2002)

A: holding a petition unexhausted because the petition provides no citation of any case that might have alerted the court to the alleged federal nature of the claim and the petition does not contain a factual description supporting the claim citations omitted
B: holding that when a respondent fails to challenge factual allegations contained in a petition for the writ of mandamus the appellate court accepts as true the factual statements in the petition
C: recognizing in the context of a petition for a writ of mandamus that although the district court retained jurisdiction over the case following the governments mandamus petition the district court justifiably could defer trial until resolution of the appellate proceedings had the government prevailed on the merits of the mandamus petition  the trial strategies of the government as well as the defense would surely have been altered
D: holding that appellate courts can review the denial of a rule 60b motion by appeal even if the appellant mistakenly files a petition for a writ of mandamus
B.