With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Town then invoked the Williamson County state-litigation requirement and asserted that the Owners’ taking claim was unripe. Although “[r]ipeness reflects constitutional considerations that implicate ‘Article III limitations on judicial power,’ as well as ‘prudential reasons for refusing to exercise jurisdiction,’ ” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 130 S.Ct. 1758, 1767 n. 2, 176 L.Ed.2d 605 (2010) (quoting Reno v. Catholic Social Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 57, n. 18, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993)), the Williamson County state-litigation requirement involves only prudential considerations, Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725, 734, 117 S.Ct. 1659, 137 L.Ed.2d 980 (1997); see also Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 130 S.Ct. at 2610 (<HOLDING>). Because Williamson County is a prudential

A: holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
B: holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional
C: holding that williamson county is not jurisdictional
D: holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county
C.