With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". purposes of service of process. 9 . Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care AT. Am., 689 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir.2012). 10 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a). 11 . Gonzalez, 689 F.3d at 474-75 (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 . Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Mont Belvieu, 611 F.3d 289, 295 (5th Cir.2010) (citing Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 800 (Tex.1982)). 13 . Fretz Constr. Co. v. S. Nat. Bank of Hous., 626 S.W.2d 478, 483 (Tex. 1981); Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138, 142 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) ("[I]n a claim for promissory estoppel, only reliance damages are allowed.”). 14 . Bechtel Corp. v. CITGO Prods. Pipeline Co., 271 S.W.3d 898, 926 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, no pet.). 15 . Id. at 927. 16 . See Conner v. Lavaca Hosp. Dist., 267 F.3d 426, 436 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). 17 . Bechtel Corp., 271 S.W.3d at 928 ("Such

A: holding that there could be no reasonable reliance on original contract following its repudiation
B: holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
C: holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance
D: holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance
A.