Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“allege facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause.” See Tex. Ass’n. of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446. The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction is to establish a reason why the merits of the plaintiffs claim should not be reached. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist, 34 S.W.3d at 554. However, “a court deciding a plea to the jurisdiction is not required to look solely to the pleadings but may consider evidence and must do so wh of immunity from liability by the defendant, and thus fails to state a cause of action upon which the relief sought can be granted, and his claim cannot be repled to state a cause of action, the trial court should not permit repleading but should dismiss the suit. See Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 378 (Tex.2006) ; see also Brantley, 365 S.W.3d at 94 (stating
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in the context of the federal tort claims act claims dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds are not dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but for the existence of a defense
B. holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
C. holding that where plaintiff reata failed to demonstrate waiver of citys immunity from liability under tort claims act plaintiffs claims were properly dismissed and plaintiff was not entitled to replead
D. holding that equitable considerations did not toll the statute of limitations under the tort claims act where plaintiffs conduct was not in strict compliance with congressional waiver of immunity
E. holding plaintiff must make some showing that an act giving rise to civil liability actually occurred finding plaintiff entitled to conduct discovery to learn identity of defendant where plaintiff offered evidence sufficient to demonstrate defendants committed an unlawful act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.