With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Defendants claim that when plaintiff filed its counter-claim, it transformed the defendants that were not parties to the original action into counterclaim defendants, and assert they do not have standing to remove. The primary case cited by defendants appears at first glance to support the notion that parties who were not original defendants cannot remove, however, it acknowledges a distinct difference between defendants that were originally plaintiffs to a suit and defendants who had nothing to do with the suit but were joined by a counterclaim. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 61 S.Ct. 868, 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941) (affirming Sheets v. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp., 115 F.2d 880 (5th Cir.1940)) citing West v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139, 73 U.S. 139, 18 L.Ed. 819 (1867) (<HOLDING>). Because the defendants that filed for removal

A: holding that the amount of a commission to be awarded to the personal representative requires the exercise of judicial discretion and judgment by the clerk who has original jurisdiction in the matter
B: holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment
C: holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act
D: holding in part that the right of removal is given only to a defendant who has not submitted himself to that jurisdiction not to an original plaintiff in a state court who by resorting to that jurisdiction has become liable under the state laws to a crossaction
D.