With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1403 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Clinton v. Acequia, Inc., 94 F.3d 568, 571 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that Ninth Circuit has consistently "found the artful pleading doctrine to support removal where a plaintiff flies his state law claims in state court in an attempt to circumvent the res judicata effect of a prior federal claim that has been reduced to judgment”). 36 . See e.g., Ultramar America Limited v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1415 (9th Cir.1990) (acknowledging that Sullivan recognized a new basis for invoking the artful pleading doctrine but noting that recharacterization of a state court claim under the res judicata branch of the doctrine may only occur when prior federal judgment resolved issues of federal not state law); Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 985 F.2d 908, 912 (7th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>); Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1403 (endorsing

A: holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record
B: recognizing distinction made by majority
C: recognizing this distinction
D: recognizing ultramar distinction but also finding that removal was improper because no res judicata was present
D.