With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". no opposition papers,” forcing the state court proceedings off calendar and strongly suggesting Scott acted to delay the state court proceedings. Moreover, Scott failed to attach the required state court papers with the notice of removal, providing the court a misleading picture of the nature of the state court action. The bankruptcy court’s statements at the sanctions hearing confirm it found Scott’s conduct was tantamount to bad faith: It stated the notice of removal was intended to “delay the sanction hearing, without any basis whatsoever,” and described Scott’s actions as “outrageous,” and done “for a totally improper motive.” See In re Lehtinen, 564 F.3d at 1061 (evaluating evidence adduced at a sanctions hearing as support for a bankruptcy court’s implied finding of bad f 003) (<HOLDING>); In re Rainbow Magazine, Inc., 77 F.3d 278,

A: holding that rule 9011 allows a bankruptcy court to sanction attorneys parties and individuals that sign and file false documents in badfaith with the court
B: holding that filing a bankruptcy petition days before an important state court deadline amounted to bad faith and upholding sanctions under rule 9011
C: holding that a bad faith claim is a tort
D: holding that regarding rule 9011 this court is only concerned with documents filed  in this court and thus filings in state court provide no basis to impose sanctions under rule 9011
B.