With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ruled as to whether the precise Eleventh Amendment immunity test also applies to the determination of citizenship for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “a similar rule controls the determination of diversity jurisdiction when individual state officers or agencies are named in lieu of the state” as the Eleventh Amendment analysis. Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F.2d 1071, 1073 (9th Cir.1981). The weight of authority from other circuits supports this similarity. Maryland Stadium Authority v. Ellerbe Bechet Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 260-61 (4th Cir.2005) (adopting the same four factor Eleventh Amendment immunity analysis for diversity jurisdiction analysis); University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Tradigrain, Inc. v. Mississippi State Port

A: holding that although the question of diversity jurisdiction is distinct from that of immunity the analysis of citizenship determinations for eleventh amendment immunity and diversity jurisdiction are the same
B: holding that in order for a defendant to remove a case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction there must be complete diversity of citizenship both at the time that the case is commenced and at the time that the notice of removal is filed
C: holding that defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction
D: holding that the political subdivisions of a state are subject to federal diversity jurisdiction
A.