With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". But just as this contact was not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Lemley, this contact is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over Iravani. Second, Plaintiff argues that Iravani’s attendance at the one-day Philadelphia meeting between Cohen, Iravani, Heller, and their respective lawyers supports specific jurisdiction. However, like the phone calls made by Lemley to Cohen, this contact is not sufficiently related to Plaintiffs wrongful initiation of civil proceedings cause of action. This meeting occurred after the filing of suit, and therefore, while it might serve as evidence of an improper purpose, it is not a cause of or even an impetus for Iravani’s allegedly wrongful initiation of the Connecticut Litigation. See O’Connor, 496 F.3d at 323 (<HOLDING>). Thus, this contact with Pennsylvania cannot

A: holding misrepresentation must at least be partial cause of plaintiffs injury
B: holding two days is sufficient to prove causation
C: holding that specific jurisdiction requires at least butfor causation
D: holding that rule 58 allows inclusion of at least one citation to legal authority and at least a onesentence explanation of the courts reasoning
C.