With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". alleging violation of federal rights by state officials. This is exactly what is required in the present case. [1123.] A departure from the Ex parte Young, exception is not applicable in this case based on the fact that plaintiffs are seeking to recover costs and reasonable attorney fees. The argument of the State that this is an attack on the State treasury is rejected. Plaintiffs do not seek any monetary judgment other than costs and reasonable attorney fees. Rather, the plaintiffs’ complaint asks this Court to declare that Amendment E violates the ADA and certain constitutional rights and to enter an order permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing or taking any steps toward enforcing Amendment E. See Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 53 L.Ed.2d 745 (1977) (<HOLDING>). [1124.] In Coeur d’Alene, the plaintiff

A: holding lawsuit against the state could proceed where gravamen of complaint was to vindicate plaintiffs civil liberties and not to establish ownership over state resources or funds
B: holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction
C: holding student activity fees not to be state funds when they were segregated from university funds and the state treasury
D: holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial
A.