Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
venue as to a nonresident co-defendant would vanish and the court would lose personal jurisdiction over the remaining nonresident co-defendant. Ross v. Battle, 117 Ga. 877, 880, 45 S.E. 252, 254 (1903). Defendant argues that the Final Judgment cannot be enforced against him, and that plaintiff should be required to reassert her now eighteen-year-old claim, although defendant argues that the reasserted claims would be barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant’s argument is without merit. The defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and venue are waived as a matter of law if not raised “at the earliest opportunity.” See Euler-Siac S.P.A. v. Drama Marble Co., 274 Ga.App. 252, 254-55, 617 S.E.2d 203, 206 (2005); Maalouf v. Knight, 237 Ga.App. 509, 510, 515 S.E.2d 650, 652 (1999) ; McDonough Contractors, Inc. v. Martin &
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that sudden emergency is an affirmative defense which must be specifically plead
B. holding that the defense of lack of venue must be made at the earliest opportunity to plead or it is waived
C. holding that defendants waived defense of personal staff exception to title vii by failing to plead same
D. holding that the plaintiff waived an objection to the defendants failure to plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense
E. recognizing that mitigation of damages is an affirmative defense a party must plead and prove
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.