With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We also agree with the BAP that the notice of removal was frivolous. The debt- or represented in its bankruptcy schedules that it had no assets, the state court proceedings were stayed against the debtor, and the trustee of the debtor’s estate gave no indication that the state court action might otherwise affect the estate. Scott never articulated a plausible argument why the bankruptcy court could have had jurisdiction over the state proceedings in spite of those circumstances. It was therefore not an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to find Scott’s notice of removal frivolous and filed in bad faith to delay the state court proceedings, thereby warranting the imposition of sanctions. See Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distrib., 606 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Silberkraus, 336 F.3d 864, 871 (9th

A: recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals
B: recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties
C: holding that an attorneys misrepresentations and manipulative tactics unnecessarily protracting the proceedings warranted the imposition of sanctions under the courts inherent power
D: recognizing courts inherent power to impose sanctions including attorneys fees for conduct that abuses the judicial process
C.