With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applies to receivers appointed by state courts, and the Court determines that it does not. Section 959(a) does not permit maintenance of this action against Lighthouse because Lighthouse was appointed by a state court, (emphasis added). Following Republic Bank, other courts have similarly held that section 959(a) applies only to receivers appointed by federal courts, not state courts. See Freeman v. Cty. of Orange, 2014 WL 12668679 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 959(a) “has no application to a receiver appointed by a state court,” and therefore, the Bartondoctrine was applicable to the plaintiffs claims); In re Jefferson County, Alabama, 484 B.R. 427, 456-458 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2012); Republic Bank of Chi. v. Lighthouse Mgmt. Grp., Inc., 829 F.Supp.2d 766 (D. Minn. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Based bn the above cited cases, we conclude

A: holding that a federal courts dismissal of state claims without prejudice is not res judicata as to adjudication in either state or federal courts
B: holding that section 959a only applies to receivers appointed by federal courts not state courts
C: recognizing that decisions of lower federal courts interpreting federal law are not binding on state courts
D: holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law
B.