With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with a state's control over public utility rates. The Act provides in pertinent part: The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the operation of, or compliance with, any order affecting rates chargeable by a public utility and made by a State administrative agency or a rate-making body of a State political subdivision, where: (1) Jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship or repugnance of the order to the Federal Constitution; and, (2) The order does not interfere with interstate commerce; and, (3) The order has been made after reasonable notice and hearing; and, (4) A plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State. The Johnson Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1342 (1988). See also Tennyson v. Gas Service Co., 506 F.2d 1135 (10th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>) By the Johnson Act’s “broad wording it is

A: holding no pendent party jurisdiction over nondiverse defendants when underlying suit brought under 42 usc  1983
B: holding that 42 usc  1396aa13a is enforceable in a suit under  1983
C: holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983
D: holding the johnson act forbade federal court jurisdiction in a class action suit brought under 42 usc  1983
D.