With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co., 288 F.2d 349, 350 (5th Cir.1961) (citation omitted). If a party fails to specifically allege citizenship in their notice of removal, the district court should allow that party “to cure the omission,” as authorized by § 1653. D.J. McDuffie, Inc. v. Old Reliable Fire Ins. Co., 608 F.2d 145, 146-47 (5th Cir.1979). For example, in Armada Coal, a party “imperfectly pled” federal diversity jurisdiction as the ground for its removal to federal court. Armada Coal Export, Inc. v. Interbulk, Ltd., 726 F.2d 1566, 1568 (11th Cir.1984). We remanded the case to district court with instructions to grant the party leave to amend its notice of removal to “unequivocally” establish diversity of citizenship. Id. at 1569. See also Barrow Dev. Co. v. Fulton Ins. Co., 418 F.2d 316, 318 (9th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Artjen Parties appeal the district

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 defective allegations of citizenship may be amended to establish diversity jurisdiction
C: 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
D: holding that corporation that may be liable under state law was not a nominal party and thus its citizenship in same state as plaintiff destroyed diversity jurisdiction
B.