With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of dismissal of a co-defendant school district from the action, even though the school district had refused to consent to removal, where removability of the action based on fraudulent joinder of the school district was ascertainable, if at all, upon service of the complaint); Clingan v. Celtic Life Ins. Co., 244 F.Supp.2d 1298, 1308 (M.D.Ala.2003) (remanding on grounds of untimely removal, after concluding that the removing defendant could have ascertained within thirty days of receipt of the complaint that it had valid arguments for fraudulent joinder with respect to all claims asserted against a non-diverse co-defendant, and need not have awaited deposition transcripts before seeking removal based on fraudulent joinder); Naef v. Masonite Corp., 923 F.Supp. 1504, 1513 (S.D.Ala.1996) (<HOLDING>); Guerrero v. General Motors Corp., 892 F.Supp.

A: holding that a notice of removal based on fraudulent joinder was procedurally defective because it was filed more than thirty days after defendants could have intelligently ascertained that the action was removable
B: holding that failure to remove within thirty days after receiving a statecourt complaint from which the removing defendant could have discerned fraudulent joinder of a nondiverse party rendered removal untimely
C: 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
D: holding that a removal notice must be filed within a reasonable time after fraudulent joinder becomes evident
A.