With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state for purposes of judicial jurisdiction. In Marriott PLP Corp. v. Tuschman, 904 F.Supp. 461 (D.Md.1995), the federal district court stated: “Tusehman’s status as a limited partner in CHLP, even though the latter’s principal place of business is in Maryland, does not in and of itself confer personal jurisdiction over Tuschman in this Court. Shareholders in a corporation do not subject themselves to personal jurisdiction in the forum in which the corporation was formed. Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 216, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2585, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977). Similarly, forums in which a corporation does .business do not. automatically have personal jurisdiction over the corporation’s shareholders .... ' “The sam .2d 860, 863 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>).” 904 F.Supp. at 466; see also Construction

A: holding that nonresident limited partners did not have the necessary minimum contacts to sustain personal jurisdiction in florida although partnerships purpose was to develop property in florida
B: holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant
C: holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant
D: holding defendant had requisite contacts under section 481932 florida statutes where it solicited consulting and other services from a florida corporation in which a substantial amount of the services sought by defendant were performed in florida
A.