With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". controversy since the defendant was, for all intents and purposes, operating its business from Ohio. Id. In the instant case, the Court finds that Defendants’ contacts with this forum are too tenuous to support a finding of general jurisdiction. Unlike the defendant in Perkins, Defendants maintain no physical presence in California nor is there any showing that they conducted their business operations here. The examples of Defendants’ alleged forum-related contacts are, at best, too isolated and sporadic to constitute the type of continuous and systematic contacts that “approximates physical presence.” Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1086. Thus, based on the record presented, the Court finds that it lacks general jurisdiction over Defendants. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 416-17, 104 S.Ct. 1868 (<HOLDING>). 2. Alter Ego/Agency Theory As an alternative

A: holding there was no general jurisdiction when there was no evidence that defendants advertised or promoted their goods or services in texas solicited business in texas sold their goods or services to a texas entity established a general business office or general business presence in texas or targeted texas markets
B: holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas
C: holding that a texas court lacked jurisdiction over a defendant which did not have a place of business in and never had a license to do business in texas and where its contacts consisted of sending personnel to the state for businessrelated matters and making instate purchases of equipment and services
D: holding sending two employees to work in texas and using an office in texas for limited purposes did not support finding of general jurisdiction
C.