With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the plaintiff followed her to New Jersey and instituted proceedings under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”), N.J.S.A. 2A:34-28 through -52, to enforce the California judgment. He obtained an ex parte order in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, directing that Carly be delivered to him and that the defendant show cause on September 10,1982 why the California order should not be given full faith and credit. Before executing this order the Chancery Division judge had spoken by telephone with the California court and had been advised of what occurred on August 31, 1982 and that the California court had jurisdiction to modify the custody of the infant and award it to the plaintiff. The defendant filed a cross-motion seeking an adju L.Ed.2d 1008 (1958) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Ford, 371 U.S. 187, 83 S.Ct. 273, 9

A: holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce
B: holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
C: holding north carolina had authority to modify new york custody decree if the north carolina court found changed circumstances because new york decree was modifiable under new york law on showing of changed circumstances
D: holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york
C.