With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". but the Names who are personally hable on the contracts, it is therefore the Names who are the real parties in interest in this lawsuit. See Stipulation, ¶¶ 16-21, 39. In other district courts, the question of jurisdiction of a Lloyd’s London syndicate has been probed and resolved. While the decisions of the other districts do not bind this Court, the Court finds the reasoning and analysis of the other courts to be persuasive on this issue. The District Courts for the District of Maine, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Hawaii have thoroughly examined and analyzed the proper way to categorize a Lloyd’s syndicate for diversity jurisdiction purposes. See Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Certain Member Cos. of the Inst. of London Underwriters, 870 F.Supp. 3 (D.Me.1994) (<HOLDING>); International Ins. Co. v. Certain

A: holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members
B: holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same
C: holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
D: holding that the citizenship of lloyds is determined by that of all names
C.