With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” Id. Cottrell contends that this case was removed in a timely manner because Cott-rell removed the case within thirty days of receipt of an order in state court dismissing Defendant Cassens & Sons, Inc., on summary judgment; alternatively, Cottrell contends that removal is timely because the case was removed within thirty days from the date Cottrell received a copy of an answer in which Defendant Jeff Cas-sens denied liability to the Younts. Although a few courts have taken the view that removals based on alleged fraudulent joinder are not subject to the thirty-day time limitation on removal set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), see, e.g., Armond v. Shoney’s, Inc., No. 91-0895, 1991 WL 162120, at **6-7 (E.D.La. Aug.9, 1991) (<HOLDING>), this Circuit holds, as does the weight of

A: holding that a removal notice must be filed within a reasonable time after fraudulent joinder becomes evident
B: 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
C: holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand
D: holding that assertions of consent of nonjoined defendants contained in a notice of removal does not constitute proper joinder for removal purposes
A.