Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
two of the three physicians or (b) Local 68’s standing to sue the physicians. The argument regarding personal jurisdiction fails immediately. Assuming arguendo that the New Jersey state court had no personal jurisdiction over two of the physi dans, AstraZeneca does not dispute that one of the non-consenting physicians, Antoun, is a resident of and has offices located in New Jersey. (Conapl. ¶ 94.) Moreover, “personal jurisdiction is an individual liberty right and is therefore waivable,” and neither of the other two physician defendants, Berkman and Hopkins, have moved to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction. McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107, 127 (1st Cir.2005) (citation omitted); see also Seguros Comercial Am. v. Am. President Lines, Ltd., 934 F.Supp. 243, 245 (S.D.Tex.1996) . AstraZeneca’s argument regarding standing
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that removal proceedings are in the nature of process and defects in the removal procedures are waivable
B. holding that removal based on fraudulent joinder was not timely where it occurred more than thirty days after the removing defendants learned of facts showing that a nondiverse codefendant was fraudulently joined
C. holding that removal was untimely where the removing defendant could have ascertained from the face of a complaint that certain nondiverse codefendants were fraudulently joined but did not seek removal based on fraudulent joinder until after the state court granted a motion to strike the plaintiffs allegations against the diversitydefeating codefendants
D. holding that defects in service of process must be raised in preliminary objections
E. holding that removing defendant could not establish fraudulent joinder based on waivable defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction or defects in service of process available only to joined defendants
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.