With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to oppose Defendants’ Motion pursuant to Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.1988) and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc). Plaintiff filed his Opposition on July 24, 2009 [Doc. No. 113]. The Court also granted Defendants’ request to file a supplement to their Motion in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recently published opinion in Norwood v. Vance, 572 F.3d 626 (9th Cir.2009). See July 14, 2009 Order at 1. Because Defendants were permitted to supplement their Motion, the Court permitted Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Opposition [Doc. No. 117], Defendants filed their Reply on August 13, 2009 [Doc. No. 113]. In addition, Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is verified under penalty of perjury. See Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 460 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Having now exercised its discretion to

A: holding that a court must convert a motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment under fedrcivp 56 only when the jurisdictional question intertwines with the merits of the case
B: holding that a questionnaire may be used to assist the court in determining whether cases should be dismissed under 28 usc  1915
C: holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608
D: holding that a complaint or motion duly verified under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 usc  1746 may be used as an opposing affidavit under fedrcivp 56
D.