With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 187 F.2d 397, 402 (9th Cir.1951) ("The necessity of establishing in the complaints the relationship of the defendants, in this case an employment relationship, is at best a doubtful question of state law which should be tried in the state court and not determined in removal proceedings”). Federal district courts are not entitled to determine uncertain issues of law in order to ascertain whether there has been a fraudulent joinder, as those such issues must be determined in state court. See e.g., Green v. Amerada Hess Corp., 707 F.2d 201, 205 (5th Cir.1983) ("if there is even a possibility that a state court would find a cause of action stated ... then the federal court must [remand]”). 11 . See, e.g., Insinga v. LaBella, 845 F.2d 249, 254 (11th Cir.1988)

A: holding that although the resident defendant had not been formally served prior to removal the resident defendant had made a voluntary appearance in state court and therefore jurisdiction was not proper under  1441b
B: holding that once a plaintiff has pled facts in the complaint indicating that the statute of limitations is a complete or partial bar to an action it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead either in the complaint or in amendments to it facts establishing an exception to the affirmative defense
C: holding that another states reservation of personal jurisdiction over a florida resident for the purpose of modifying its decree may last as long as the effectiveness of the decree and that no dueprocess violation occurs by the entry of a default modification against the florida resident if the florida resident was afforded proper notice
D: holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court
D.