Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the trial court re-set the submission date for the Motion to March 18. In determining that the trial court reversibly erred in granting the Motion (and that the Insureds’ motion for rehearing should be granted), the majority relies on its conclusion that the trial court did not re-set the submission date for the Motion to March 18. But, contrary to the majority’s conclusion, in their Motion for Rehearing, the Insureds assert that the trial court did re-set the submission date for the Motion to March 18; however, the Insureds claim that they did not receive notice that the Motion had been re-set until March 18. The Insureds state that “giving notice on March 18 — the day summary judg 14-04-00064-CV, 2004 WL 2933575, at *1 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 21, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) ; Rios v. Texas Bank, 948 S.W.2d 30, 32-33
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding appellant waived her complaint that trial court gave her no notice of summaryjudgment hearing by not raising the objection in the trial court
B. holding that the plaintiffs second complaint did not relate back to her first complaint because her second complaint was not an amendment to her first complaint but rather a separate filing
C. holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection
D. holding that once a trial court has set a date for a summaryjudgment hearing the court must allow the nonmoving party an opportunity to be heard
E. holding that appellant who properly filed an objection in accordance with the notice he received from the trial court had standing to appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.