With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 345 U.S. 925, 73 S.Ct. 783, 97 L.Ed. 1356 (1953). Plaintiff argues the Supreme Court in Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S.Ct. 489, 142 L.Ed.2d 502 (1998), implicitly considered and rejected the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine’s application to § 1985 by allowing an employee to bring a § 1985(2) action against his employer and its officers. Plaintiff misconstrues the scope and holding of Haddle. Although Haddle involved a § 1985(2) action alleging conspiracy among an employer and its officers, the intracorporate conspiracy issue was not considered. The Supreme Court made clear its review was “confined to one question: Can petitioner state a claim for damages by alleging that a conspiracy proscribed by § 1 1985 claims. See Dombrowski v. Dowling, 459 F.2d 190, 196 (7th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). The Circuits are divided over whether

A: holding that the conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction requires that the outofstate coconspirator was or should have been aware of the acts performed in the forum state in furtherance of the conspiracy
B: holding that it was immaterial for conflict of interest purposes whether one attorney or two attorneys in the same firm represented the witness and the defendant
C: holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators
D: holding that when two executives of the same firm make a decision to discriminate in furtherance of the purposes of the business this decision cannot be called a conspiracy for purposes of  1985
D.