With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the issue of attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiffs Pedro Zaragoza Delgado and Ema Georgina Zaragoza-Aldana wish to be reimbursed for their attorney’s fees incurred as a result of Defendants’ removal of this case, they shall FILE within ten days a motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to and in compliance with Local Court Rule CV-7(j). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions before the Court, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. 1 . In this case, Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of Texas; thus, there is no diversity jurisdiction. 2 . The Court notes that there is a circuit split regarding whether the federal common law of foreign relations is an appropriate basis for federal question jurisdiction. Compare Torres, 113 F.3d at 543 (<HOLDING>) with Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d

A: holding that no substantial question of federal law was required to be answered to determine the plaintiffs statelaw legal malpractice negligence and breach of contract claims
B: holding that federal question jurisdiction existed where plaintiffs suit although rooted in statelaw claims implicated foreign policy concerns
C: holding state immune from suit involving a federal question
D: holding the federal tort claims act did not permit exercise of pendant jurisdiction over additional parties as to which no basis for federal jurisdiction existed
B.