With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". further acknowledges that compliance with § 15-1-36(15) is mandatory for actions brought in Mississippi state courts so that noncompliance with the notice requirement will result in dismissal of the action. See Arceo v. Tolliver, 2006 WL 3317036 (Miss.2006) (reversing trial court’s order abating rather than dismissing action for failure to give statutory notice, and declaring that failure to give notice warrants dismissal of the action) (citing Pitalo v. GPCH-GP, Inc., 933 So.2d 927 (Miss.2006)). Plaintiff contends, however, that the requirement of giving pre-suit notice to the health care defendants is procedural, rather than substantive, and therefore is not applicable in a diversity action in federal court, see Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) (<HOLDING>), and further that the statute’s notice

A: holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law
B: holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases
C: holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law
D: holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law
C.