With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to establish jurisdiction. Surpitski v. Hughes-Keenan Corp., 362 F.2d 254 (1st Cir. 1966); Collins v. New York Central System, 327 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1963). Other courts have refused to uphold such a motion where-absent an incurable defect in the complaint-the plaintiff has had no opportunity to be heard on the factual matters underlying jurisdiction. Harmon v. Superior Court of State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1962); Topping v. Fry, 147 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1945). And, although Fed.R. Civ.P. 43(e) allows factual motions to be heard on the basis of affidavits alone, a judge may be required to hear oral testimony where the facts are complicated and testimony would be helpful. As we explained in Sanders v. Monsanto Co., supra at 200 (<HOLDING>): Historical experience has taught us that

A: holding that a claim for municipal liability under  1983 requires inter alia proof of an underlying constitutional violation
B: holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal
C: holding inter alia that a civil contempt motion cannot be decided under rule 43e
D: holding that a municipal corporation cannot form the requisite criminal intent and cannot be held liable under civil rico laws
C.