With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a proposed class representative. See Plaintiffs’ Consolidated and Amended Complaint (“MC”). In March 2002, Siemens Germany and Siemens Corporation, its New York subsidiary, moved to dismiss the action against them. Siemens Austria did not join that motion as it had not yet been served with process. On June 26, 2002, Siemens Austria was finally served, see 7/2/02 Letter from Christopher Landau, Siemens defendants’ attorney, to the Court, after which time it filed this motion to dismiss. On August 8, 2002, the Court denied the other Siemens defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, on the ground of forum non conveniens. See In re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria on November 11, 2000, 230 F.Supp.2d 376, -, at *14 (S.D.N.Y.2002)(“Kapnm 7”)(<HOLDING>). The Court did not order jurisdictional

A: holding that the court has personal jurisdiction over siemens germany and that defendants failed to overcome the presumption in favor of plaintiffs choice of forum
B: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
C: holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant
D: holding that florida courts should always consider this third step of the forum non conveniens inquiry even if the private factors weigh more heavily in favor of the alternative forum and should require that the balance of public interests also be tipped in favor of the alternative forum in order to defeat the presumption favoring the plaintiffs forum choice
A.