With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". reasonable attorney fees for the individual Plaintiffs. Such a request is allowed for pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.' The Court finds the Plaintiffs’ complaint meets the requirements of the straight forward inquiry set forth in Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635; 645, 122 S.Ct. 1753, 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (2002). The Court now must determine whether the Ex parte Young doctrine is inapplicable in this case under the framework of Coeur d’Alene. The Def ding an injunction to bar collection of state tax in a bankruptcy proceeding was not a sufficient “special sovereignty interest” because it prohibited the states from seeking to collect specific income tax obligations duly discharged in a federal bankruptcy proceeding); TFWS, Inc. v. Schaefer, 242 F.3d 198 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). In only a few circumstances have appellate

A: holding a states regulation of liquor was not a special sovereignty interest in part because of the pervasive federal interest in the regulation of liquor
B: holding states property interest in right to profits from a recreational land lease did not rise to the level of a special sovereignty interest
C: holding a states regulation of wyoming national guard was insufficient to implicate a special sovereignty interest because of the dual federal and state nature of national guard service
D: holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
A.