With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 991-92 (9th Cir.1994), the Ninth Circuit extended the presumption of collusion and applied it to the assignment of claims from a non-diverse Nike subsidiary to the diverse parent corporation (an “upstream” assignment). Appellees urge us to adopt Nike and affirm the district court’s application of the presumption of collusion to the case before us. The Nike court solely relied on a quote from Green & White Constr. Co. v. Cormat Contr. Co., 361 F.Supp. 125, 128 (N.D.Ill.1973), a case applying the presumption to an upstream assignment. The Seventh Circuit, however, has subsequently explicitly rejected the use of a presumption when evaluating assignments between related entities. Herzog Contracting Corp. v. McGowen Corp., 976 F.2d 1062, 1067 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning of the Seventh Circuit is

A: holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction
B: holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award
C: holding that a reasonable inference need not be the sole possible inference
D: holding that no inference of collusive invocation of jurisdiction can be drawn from the simple fact that assignor and assignee are under common ownership
D.