With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". defendant constitute telephonic communications into Florida and confer personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant under section 48.193(l)(b), provided the cause of action arose from the telephonic communication as required by the statute and clarified in Wendt The cases considering whether a telephonic communication constituted a tortious act in Florida have not explicitly hinged a finding of jurisdiction on whether or not the nonresident defendant initiated the phone call into Florida. Rather, the cases focus on whether the nonresident defendant made the subject communications during a phone call between the out-of-state defendant and someone in Florida. See, e.g., Hou v. United Airlines Corp., No. 806CV-1502-T-27TGW, 2006 WL 2884963, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Oct.10, 2006) (<HOLDING>); OSI Indus., Inc. v. Carter, 834 So.2d 362,

A: holding that suit arose from alleged fraudulent transfer of real property located in texas even though the allegedly fraudulent assignment occurred in california
B: holding that a rico plaintiff must allege at a minimum the time place and content of the alleged misrepresentations on which he or she relied the fraudulent scheme the fraudulent intent of the defendants and the injury resulting from the fraud
C: holding that a plaintiff satisfied rule 9b by pleading which machines were the subject of alleged fraudulent transactions and the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentations
D: holding that alleged fraudulent statements by the defendants that occurred during a telephone call initiated by the plaintiff satisfied section 481931b citing wendt 822 so2d at 1260
D.