With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not take the right steps when removing ... and ... a removed matter must be remanded .if there are any defects in the removal procedure.”); Ortiz v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 583 F.Supp. 526, 529 (N.D.Ill.1984) (“A defendant seeking removal must strictly comply with all the statutory requirements, and where there is doubt as to whether the 812, 815 (5th Cir.1993) (a foreign corporation filed a timely notice of removal within thirty days from the date it first discovered the re-movability of an action by reason of the fraudulent joinder of certain non-diverse co-defendants, though it filed the notice more than thirty days from the date the complaint was served); Deming v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 3:03CV1225(CFD), 2004 WL 332741, at *5 (D.Conn. Feb. 14, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Simpson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 282 F.Supp.2d

A: holding that were the court to find fraudulent joinder as to a nondiverse defendant on the basis of evidence equally dispositive of the liability of that defendant and a nondiverse defendant a refusal later in the proceedings to give judgment for the diverse defendant on the same grounds in turn would require the court to revisit a ruling that the nondiverse defendant was fraudulently joined
B: holding that removal was untimely where the removing defendant could have ascertained from the face of a complaint that certain nondiverse codefendants were fraudulently joined but did not seek removal based on fraudulent joinder until after the state court granted a motion to strike the plaintiffs allegations against the diversitydefeating codefendants
C: holding that failure to remove within thirty days after receiving a statecourt complaint from which the removing defendant could have discerned fraudulent joinder of a nondiverse party rendered removal untimely
D: holding that removal based on fraudulent joinder was not timely where it occurred more than thirty days after the removing defendants learned of facts showing that a nondiverse codefendant was fraudulently joined
B.