With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". including three Louisiana entities. For various reasons, all the Louisiana companies were deemed insulated from liability to the plaintiff. After the case was removed to federal court, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand arguing, among other things, that not all defendants had consented to the removal. The court held such consent to be unnecessary, and said: [A]s a general rule, removal requires consent of all co-defendants. In cases involving alleged improper or fraudulent joinder of parties, however, application of this requirement to improperly or fraudulently joined parties would be nonsensical, as removal in those cases is based on the contention that no other proper defendant exists. Id. at 816. See also Polyplastics, Inc. v. Transconex, Inc., 713 F.2d 875 (1st Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Since the court has concluded that Seck-man

A: holding that a party fraudulently joined to defeat removal need not join in a removal petition and is disregarded in determining diversity of citizenship
B: holding that plaintiffs failure to allege citizenship of first defendant did not constitute good cause for second defendants failure to timely join in removal petition
C: holding that all properly served defendants must join in petition for removal except for nominal unknown or fraudulently joined parties
D: holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect
A.