With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the district court’s “necessary” party analysis, we need not decide whether “in equity and good conscience” Mutual qualifies as an indispensable party under Rule 19(b). See United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1381 n. 18a (9th Cir.1984). Since Mutual has not demonstrated that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over a “necessary” party to the Hendricks’ action, the district court could grant injunctive relief against the Bank without deciding whether it had personal jurisdiction over Mutual individually. C: Mutual argues next that the shareholder agreement’s forum selection clause required the district court to dismiss the Hendricks’ action for improper venue. See Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 324 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). There is some ambiguity in the record as to

A: holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue
B: recognizing circuit agreement that a motion to dismiss based on an arbitration clause is proper under rule 12b3
C: holding prejudgment denial of motion to dismiss on basis of forumselection clause not to be immediately appealable under  1291
D: holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment
A.