With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff's claims constitutes a waiver of a defendant’s special appearance and today’s opinion appears to be the first time that the Fourteenth Court of Appeals has addressed this issue. Though the majority correctly concludes that this conduct does not waive a special appearance, the majority fails to cite language from Rule 120a and cases from sister courts that support this conclusion. See, e.g., Tex.R. Civ. P. 120a (stating that "the issuance of process for witnesses, the taking of depositions, the serving of requests for admissions, and the use of discovery processes, shall not constitute a waiver of such special appearance" and containing no limitation of this language to jurisdictional issues); Silbaugh v. Ramirez, 126 S.W.3d 88, 93 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Minucci v. Sogevalor, S.A., 14 S.W.3d 790,

A: holding that filing of rule 11 agreement and hearing of jurisdictionrelated discovery dispute did not waive special appearance
B: holding that defendant did not waive special appearance
C: holding that defendant did not waive his special appearance by filing a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance
D: holding that defendant does not waive special appearance by engaging in discovery regarding merits of plaintiffs claims
D.