With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As explained previously, MEI and the Microtek entities collectively develop, import, use, distribute and sell the Image-Deck in California. Mil manufactures the ImageDeck in Taiwan, but the record reflects that the single point of entry into the United States is MLI’s import activities in California. In contrast, MCSC owns and operates one store, located in Fairfax, Virginia, which is responsible for a small number of ImageDeck sales. See Koehler Aff. ¶¶ 5, 8. There has been no allegation that MCSC manufactures the ImageDeck or engages in any infring nt infringement claim against a distributer of infringing products inst the Microtek entities and MEI are the core claims in this action, and adjudication of them will dispose of any claims against MCSC. See LG Elecs., 131 F.Supp.2d at 812 (<HOLDING>); Corry, 16 F.Supp.2d at 665-66 (holding that

A: holding that the fraud claims against the defendant should not have been dismissed as the complaint provided him with fair notice of the claims made against her
B: holding that a patent infringement claim against a reseller of infringing products is only peripherally related to a claim against the manufacturer
C: holding that claim preclusion applies to small claims court adjudication and that judicial economy is not served by encouraging resolution of property claims in small claims court and other claims in district court
D: holding that the adjudication of claims against an infringing products manufacturer would resolve claims against a mere reseller
D.