With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Income Security Act. Three years later, on July 31, 2001, Latimer filed a notice of removal in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Appellees filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) requesting the federal district court to remand the matter to state court. Appellees based their motion on the well-settled rule that 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) authorizes only defendants to remove suits from state to federal court. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 106-09, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941). The federal district court granted Appellees’ motion, concluding that removal was not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because Latimer is not the defendant in this action. See Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. v. Neidhardt, 56 F.3d 352, 356 (2d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Latimer then brought this appeal. From our

A: holding that for removal purposes the plaintiff is the party who first invokes the aid of a court
B: holding that successful party is one who is the ultimate prevailing party in the litigation
C: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff
D: holding that a plaintiff who wins any measure of damages is a prevailing party for the purposes of feeshifting statutes
A.