With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". first Rule 1-015(C) factor, stated in subpart (C)(1), would be whether Corporation was on notice from the Bernalillo County action of the institution of the action against Defendant such that Corporation would not be prejudiced in the joinder and in having to maintain a defense on the merits of Plaintiffs claim. This notice issue obviously would involve factual analyses of whether Defendant was the principal professional in the professional corporation “G.P. McRostie, D.O.M., N.D., P.A.,” and whether, based on Defendant’s position in Corporation, Corporation had received such notice of the institution of the Bernalillo County action that Corporation would not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits. See Rivera v. King, 108 N.M. 5, 11, 765 P.2d 1187, 1193 (Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). The second factor, stated in subpart (C)(2),

A: holding that the defendants had received sufficient notice where the original defendants and the newly added defendants shared an identity of interests and were represented by attorneys who were involved in the litigation from its inception
B: holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case
C: holding that allegations that the defendants provided substantial assistance and encouragement to the other defendants  in connection with the breaches by such other defendants of duties owed by them to the plaintiffs were too broad to be sustained
D: holding that the defendants allegations that his codefendant admitted that the defendant had no role in the robbery and that the codefendant had not testified on the defendants behalf because he had been coerced by the state were sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence
A.