With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tudor Chirila appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The defendants here (the English defendants) are all subjects of the United Kingdom. Chirila argues that the district court had personal jurisdiction based on the “effects” test. Chirila additionally contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend his complaint. We affirm. I. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether Chirila has made a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. See Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). II. This case arises out of the termination

A: holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
B: holding that rule 12b6 disposition is reviewed de novo
C: holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
D: holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo
A.