With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Transouth Mortgage Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 482, 484 (W.D.N.C.1999). This principle of considering only the citizenship of real parties to a controversy was set forth by the Supreme Court in Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458, 461, 100 S.Ct. 1779, 64 L.Ed.2d 425 (1980), which traced the principle to “[ejarly in [Court] history....” Id. at 460, 100 S.Ct. 1779. Courts within this circuit have often applied this principle in diversity cases. See. e.g., Kidd v. Gilfilen, 170 F.Supp.2d 649, 652 (S.D.W.Va.2001) (disregarding citizenship of. uninsured motorist); Comm’r of Labor of‘North Carolina v. Dillard’s, Inc., 83 F.Supp.2d 622, 630 (M.D.N.C.2000) (finding state commissioner, not employee, to be real party in interest); Hidey v. Waste Sys. Int’l, Inc., 59 F.Supp.2d 543, 546 (D.Md.1999) (<HOLDING>); State of West Virginia v. Morgan Stanley &

A: holding that lawyer who acted as mere depository for funds was nominal party whose citizenship should not be considered for diversity purposes
B: holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction
C: holding that for diversity purposes the citizenship of a llc is determined by the citizenship of all of its members
D: holding that citizenship of active underwriters and names with lloyds london had to be considered for purposes of diversity jurisdiction
A.