With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". When the presence or absence of a cause of action depends on how statutory language is interpreted (as the plaintiffs’ FHA claim does), the absence of a valid statutory cause of action does not preclude jurisdiction unless the claim is frivolous or a transparent attempt to manufacture federal-court jurisdiction where none existed. See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, -, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 1758-59, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-85, 66 S.Ct. 773, 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). Because the plaintiffs' FHA claim is neither, we have jurisdiction to consider it. See Growth Horizons, Inc. v. Delaware County, 983 F.2d 1277, 1280-84 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). 14 . Citing Ebler v. City of Newark, 54 N.J.

A: holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction
B: holding that an independent jurisdictional basis is not required in this case because intervenors do not seek to litigate a claim on the merits
C: holding that district courts determination that defendant did not make unavailable or deny housing under  3604f was a judgment on the merits rather than a jurisdictional decision because the plaintiffs claim though ultimately unsuccessful was not frivolous
D: recognizing that the district court did not reach the merits
C.