With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". have been satisfied, the case should be remanded.”) (citation omitted). 3. Timeliness of Removal Finally, the Younts challenge the timeliness of the removal of this case. A defendant seeking to remove a case in diversity jurisdiction must file a notice of removal within thirty days after service of the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). If, however, a case is not removable at the outset, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after the defendant receives “a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first rity, that the thirty-day time period applies to all removals, including those in which fraudulent joinder to defeat diversity jurisdiction is claimed. See, e.g., Poulos v. Naas Foods, Inc., 959 F.2d 69, 73 n. 4 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). See also Jernigan v. Ashland Oil Inc., 989

A: holding that failure to remove within thirty days after receiving a statecourt complaint from which the removing defendant could have discerned fraudulent joinder of a nondiverse party rendered removal untimely
B: holding that a removal notice must be filed within a reasonable time after fraudulent joinder becomes evident
C: holding that removal based on fraudulent joinder was not timely where it occurred more than thirty days after the removing defendants learned of facts showing that a nondiverse codefendant was fraudulently joined
D: holding that removal was untimely where the removing defendant could have ascertained from the face of a complaint that certain nondiverse codefendants were fraudulently joined but did not seek removal based on fraudulent joinder until after the state court granted a motion to strike the plaintiffs allegations against the diversitydefeating codefendants
A.