With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Inc., 378 S.W.3d 597, 607 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2012, pet. denied). A defendant is not entitled to any reduction , for damages if he does not prove the, damages, that could have been avoided. Austin Hill Country Realty, Inc. v. Palisades Plaza, Inc., 948 S.W.2d 293, 299 (Tex.1997); Hoppenstein Props., Inc. v. Schober, 329 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2010, no pet.). To the extent Ordonez is arguing mitigation, we conclude the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on the- actual damages because Ordonez provided no evidence of the damages that could have been avoided if Solorio had properly mitigated. See Levertov v. Hold Properties, Ltd., No. 11-11-00284-CV, 2014 WL 887225, at *4-5 (Tex.App.—Eastland Feb. 27, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Cole Chem. & Distrib., Inc. v. Gowing, 228

A: holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions
B: holding that the nonmovant failed to raise a fact issue on mitigation by not raising a fact issue as to the amount of damages that could have been avoided had the movantproperly mitigated his damages
C: holding that burden shifts to nonmovant to raise issue of fact
D: holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal
B.