With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), the Supreme Court held that absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts must abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Over time, a three-part test has emerged for determining whether abstention under Younger is appropriate: (1) the state judicial proceeding must be ongoing; (2) the proceeding must implicate important state interests; and (3) there must be an adequate opportunity in the state court proceeding to raise a constitutional challenge. Trust & Inv. Advisers, Inc. v. Hogsett, 43 F.3d 290, 294 (7th Cir.1994). However, states may waive their right to Younger abstention. Ohio Bureau of Employment Servs. v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 480, 97 S.Ct. 1898, 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (1977) (<HOLDING>); see also Brown v. Hotel & Rest. Employees &

A: holding that states removal to federal court voluntarily invoked the federal courts jurisdiction waiving eleventh amendment immunity
B: holding that where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after the federal complaint is filed but before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in the federal court the principles of younger v harris should apply in full force
C: holding that where a state voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum principles of comity do not demand that the federal court force the case back into the states own system
D: holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state
C.