With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". FDCPA and the OCS-PA caused injury to Ms. Vlach such that service of process is proper under O.R.C. § 2307.382(A)(6). By allegedly sending “false, deceptive, or misleading” representations in violation of FDCPA and allegedly committing “unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts” in violation of OCSPA, Mr. Yaple should have reasonably expected that the recipient would have been injured in this state, given that the letter was addressed to an Ohio resident. See Ferron v. 411 Web Directory, 2:09-cv-153, 2009 WL 2047780, at *3 (S.D.Ohio July 6, 2009)(fmding alleged violations of OCSPA give rise to tortious injury for purposes of the Ohio Long Arm statute); FRC Intern., Inc. v. Taifun Feuerloschgeratebau und Vertriebs GmbH, 3:01 CV 7533, 2002 WL 31086104, at *4, 5 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 18, 2002)(<HOLDING>); Vlasak v. Rapid Collection Systems, Inc., 962

A: recognizing that federal courts have held that the commission of a tortious act out of state that causes injury to an instate resident satisfies floridas longarm statute
B: holding that under delawares longarm statute the act of mailing for purposes of subsection c3 is complete when the material is mailed even if the mailed material causes tortious injury within delaware
C: holding that the alleged fraudulent communications satisfy the causes tortious injury by an act or omission in this state portions of the ohio longarm statute
D: recognizing that the ohio longarm statute does not extend to the limits of due process and focusing the inquiry on whether defendant established sufficient business contacts with ohio
C.