With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State of North Carolina, such that the nature and quality of Yanoor’s relationship to the forum “can in no sense be viewed as random, fortuitous, or attenuated.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479-80, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotations omitted). Yanoor contends that the January 10 meeting in North Carolina involving Korhani and executives from Burlington does not constitute a contact of Yanoor for the purpose of this jurisdictional analysis because Yanoor was not yet in existence. Case law is sparse regarding whether the pre-incorporation contacts of an individual can be attributed to a corporation for the purposes of analyzing personal jurisdiction; nevertheless, there are a few cases that lend some direction to this issue. See Rees v. Mosaic Techs., Inc., 742 F.2d 765, 768 (3d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Chase v. Pan-Pacific Broad., Inc.,

A: holding that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review a final state court decision in a particular case
B: recognizing the lack of case law governing jurisdiction of preincorporation activities
C: holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error
D: holding that the case must be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction where notice of appeal was untimely
B.