With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The court found that all of the requirements were met by an “Agreed Order for Severance of Actions” entered in a state court containing the following provisions: (1) the [state] court found that there was no reason to delay the entry of a final judgment in favor of the [non-diverse defendant] based upon the granted motion for summary judgment; (2) the plaintiffs’ claims against the non-diverse [defendant] were “severed ... and made the subject of a separate action” under a new style and with a new cause number; and (3) separate judgments were to be entered in the severed cases, “each judgment to be final and to dispose completely of all issues between all parties in the respective suits.” Id. at 129-30 (footnote omitted). Cf. Miller v. Fulton, 113 F.Supp.2d 1035, 1039 (S.D.Miss.2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case there is no indication that the

A: holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined
B: holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her
C: holding that diversity jurisdiction was not established by a statecourt order that provided only that the plaintiffs claims against a nondiverse defendant be and hereby are severed from this action
D: holding that a statecourt order providing for severance and separate trials of claims against a diverse defendant and a nondiverse defendant did not permit removal of a plaintiffs claim against the diverse defendant where the claims had not been separately docketed in state court and the plaintiffs claim against the nondiverse defendant had been removed together with the claim against the diverse defendant
D.