Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Kroger Tex., LP, 288 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir.2002) (stating that the Fifth Circuit has held that “specific damage estimates that are less than the minimum jurisdictional amount, when combined with other unspecified damage claims, can provide sufficient notice that an action is removable so as to trigger the time limit for filing a notice of removal”). However, the Court believes that Plaintiffs Original Petition is not such a pleading. Since Plaintiffs Original Petition contains no information about his salary or the kinds of promotions allegedly denied him, any estimate as to his potential damages would be based on supposition, not affirmative revelations. Cf. Exceleron Software, Inc. v. TGEC Commc’ns Co., No. Civ. A. 3:05-CV-2007-L, 2005 WL 3542566, at *3 (N.D.Tex. Dec.23, 2005) . To demonstrate that his Original Petition
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an initial pleading triggered the thirtyday time limit for removal under  1446b because it sets forth on its face express allegations as to the monetary amount of damages
B. holding that a writ of summons alone can no longer be the initial pleading that triggers the 30day period for removal under the first paragraph of 28 usc  1446b
C. holding that removal under the second paragraph of  1446b did not apply and defendants therefore had removed outside of the thirty day time period triggered at the time of service of the complaint
D. holding other paper must be unequivocally clear and certain to start the time limit running for a notice of removal under the second paragraph of section 1446b
E. holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.