With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". court, Randolph and Kelley sued the appellees reflected in the style of this case, and Wayne Dolcefino, KTRK Television. Inc., C C Texas Holding Co., Inc., Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., Henry Florsheim, and David Gwizdowski. The trial court granted the ap-pellees’ motion in this case for Rule 13 sanctions and struck appellants' claims in their Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amended Petitions against Jackson Walker and Bleisch, and dismissed those claims with prejudice. Thereafter, the trial court severed appellants’ claims against Jackson Walker and Bleisch into the “A” trial court cause number reflected above. That severance made the interlocutory judgment granting sanctions and dismissing claims final and appealable. See Martinez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 311, 312 (Tex.1994) (<HOLDING>). In addition, on the same day as the

A: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in severing defendants counterclaim after summary judgment was granted as to plaintiffs claim
B: holding trial court may make a judgment final for purposes of appeal by severing the causes and parties disposed of by the judgment into a different cause
C: holding a judgment of a district court does not become final by appeal within the meaning of the statute providing for registration of such judgments in another district until the case has been disposed of by appeal
D: holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal
B.