With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Crow, 772 F.Supp. 1254, 1256 (M.D.Fla.1991) (plaintiffs must proffer evidence providing a basis to recover punitive damages prior to pleading in complaint); McCarthy v. Barnett Bank, 750 F.Supp. 1119, 1127 (M.D.Fla. 1990) (plaintiffs pled specific acts under § 768.72 to adequately support a claim for punitive damages); Frio Ice, S.A. v. Sunfruit, Inc., 724 F.Supp. 1373, 1383 (S.D.Fla.19689) (punitive claim stricken for failure to provide evidence showing reasonable basis for recovering punitive damages); Lancer Arabians, Inc. v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 723 F.Supp. 1444, 1446-47 (M.D.Fla.1989) (section 768.72 "is clearly substantive because it sets the standard for establishing a claim for punitive damages”) (citation omitted); Brennan v. Minneola, 723 F.Supp. 1442, 1443 (M.D.Fla.1989) (<HOLDING>); Dah Chong Hong, Ltd. v. Silk Greenhouse,

A: holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law
B: recognizing that section 76872 is substantive law even though the state statute was preempted by federal civil rights law
C: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
D: holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law
B.