With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". jurisdiction in a separate suit.” Gibbons v. Brown, 716 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Many of the Columbia’s lawsuits in Florida were actions to enforce foreign judgments. There is no indication that Columbia engaged in a pervasive litigation business that subjected it to jurisdiction under section 48.193(2). For these reasons, we reverse the circuit court’s order denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and remand for the entry of an order granting Columbia’s motion. POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur. 1 . Because we decide this case on the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction over Columbia, we do not address the viability of the causes of action alleged. 2 . Compare Northwestern Aircraft Capital Corp. v. Stewart, 842 So.2d 190, 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Herron, 828

A: holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree
B: 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
C: holding that the trial court properly exercised general jurisdiction over corporation that marketed distributed repaired and sold parts in florida and additionally provided continuous charter services in florida
D: holding that defendants bank account and open line of credit in florida utilized to transfer money in international commerce was insufficient to confer jurisdiction under section 481932 florida statutes where defendant operated its business in honduras had no employees or agents in florida and did not advertise or solicit business in florida
C.