With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The question here is not whether he intended to defeat jurisdiction but whether he filed in conscious disregard of proper jurisdiction. Those are different propositions. Although these arguments bear some real similarity, they do not intersect. The Frenches’ counsel’s affidavit also stated that he had believed that the federal court might have been able to retain jurisdiction over the entirety had it chosen to do so. That was a mistake in an understanding of the law, not a mistake of fact. As pointed out by the Eastland court in Parker, the issue focused on the question of whether the record showed that claimant had made “a good faith mistake” by initially filing in a (federal) court without jurisdiction over the claim. The court found that the claimant had not acted in good faith (<HOLDING>) and that it was not necessary for the

A: recognizing that the partys factual complaint if taken as true affirmatively established that the other tribunal had no jurisdiction
B: holding that a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction only precludes the relitigation of the issue of whether the first tribunal had jurisdiction
C: recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss
D: holding that the court need not accept as true  unwarranted factual inferences
A.