Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
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 . Because Williamson County is a prudential
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that exhaustion of issues is jurisdictional
C. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
D. holding that williamson county is not jurisdictional
E. recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.