With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Rico. Taber Partners I, 798 F.Supp. at 912. We do not concur in the district court’s analysis. III. DISCUSSION A district court’s determination of citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact. As such, we will not set aside the district court’s decision unless it is “clearly erroneous.” Lundquist v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 946 F.2d 8, 11 (1st Cir.1991); Media Duplication, 928 F.2d at 1237. In addition, we review the facts of this case mindful that the party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court carries the burden of proving its existence. See, e.g., Lundquist, 946 F.2d at 10. In this circuit, we corporate identity of parent where evidence showed it operated independently of wholly-owned subsidiary); de Walker, 569 F.2d at 1173 (<HOLDING>). Accord Danjag, S.A. v. Pathe Communications

A: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary
B: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that subsidiary performed the lions share of the film production for the parent
C: recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent consolidated its profits and losses with that of its whollyowned subsidiary in presenting parents financial reports to shareholders that subsidiary was considered a division of parent and that subsidiary accounted for 60 of parents and subsidiarys combined operations
D: recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent
C.