With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". declaratory judgment that OTC’s stops and searches of MCN’s vehicles and seizures of their lading were unlawful. Count III sought a prohibitory injunction directing OTC to cease interfering with MCN’s vehicles and their lading. Count IV requested mandatory injunctive relief directing the return of the seized cigarettes. Count V, in the alternative, sought damages to compensate MCN for the monetary value of the cigarettes. In a thorough order, the district court granted OTC and its Commissioners’ Rule 12(b) motion and dismissed MCN’s amended complaint in its entirety. As to OTC, the court dismissed the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction based on OTC’s defense of sovereign immunity. See Republic of Austria v. Altmamn, 541 U.S. 677, 700, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004) (<HOLDING>). The court rejected MCN’s argument that in

A: holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
B: holding that the defense of sovereign immunity is not available in the absence of a statute providing immunity to a municipal corporation in a negligence action
C: recognizing a claim of sovereign immunity raises a jurisdictional defense
D: recognizing application of sovereign immunity to school districts
C.