With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 716, 724-25 (3d Cir.1982) (comparing jurisdictional questions “concerning the court’s power to entertain the action” with “dilatory defenses [such as venue] that do not concern the court’s authority to adjudicate,” and holding that while the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the former, defendants must plead facts showing the absence of the latter). As such, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to include allegations in his complaint showing that venue is proper. Id. at 724. In its amended complaint, Great Western alleged that ADR Options and Brownstein & Vitale were corporations “doing business” in the State of New Jersey, so venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) and (c). See Wilson v. Paradise Vill. Beach Resort & Spa, 395 NJ.Super. 520, 528, 929 A.2d 1122 (App.Div.2007) (<HOLDING>). Brownstein & Vitale argued in its motion to

A: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
B: holding that under new jersey law any party that maintains minimum contacts with the  state that are continuous and substantial will be subject to personal jurisdiction
C: holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts
D: holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant
B.