With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 571 So.2d 493, 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (denying a petition for writ of prohibition on the merits but noting that “[w]hen the motion was denied and movants elected to challenge that ruling by seeking a writ of prohibition rather than waiting to raise the issue on plenary appeal, a petition should have been filed as soon as practicable” citing Carr v. Miner, 375 So.2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979))). A party having knowledge of grounds to disqualify a judge may not delay taking preventive action until after suffering an adverse ruling. “A motion for recusal is considered untimely when delayed until after the moving party has suffered an adverse ruling unless good cause for delay is shown.” Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla.1986); Lawson v. Longo, 547 So.2d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (<HOLDING>); Data Lease Fin. Corp. v. Blackhawk Heating &

A: holding that the defendants motion to amend their notice of removal was proper due to plaintiffs waived objections to the sufficiency of the notice of removal by failing to seek remand within thirty days of removal
B: holding that party waives right to seek removal of judge by doing nothing to affirmatively promote or protect the issue of the possible recusal
C: holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue
D: holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue
B.