With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 21, 2008, Toyota acknowledged that this was an issue that needed to be monitored. (Emphasis added.) Dweib defined “subject vehicles” as vehicles “Toyota manufactured, distributed and sold ... with an [ECU].” Mubarak-Assad averred that the defendants in the Mubarakr-Assad case, including DENSO Japan, manufactured, sold, distributed, and marketed Toyota vehicles containing defective ECUs that caused the vehicles to accelerate unexpectedly. Hall alleged that DENSO Japan was doing business in Texas by manufacturing defective ECUs, including the one that allegedly caused Hall’s accident, and placing them in the stream of commerce to be sold in Texas. We conclude Hall pleaded jurisdictional facts that DENSO Japan committed a tort in whole or in part in Texas. See Kelly, 301 S.W.3d at 659-60 (<HOLDING>); see also Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. BLyn

A: holding plaintiff was required to allege defendants committed tortious acts in texas to satisfy his initial burden of pleading jurisdictional facts
B: holding that the burden to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction resides with plaintiff
C: holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction
D: holding no specific jurisdiction where alleged tortious conduct was not related to defendants contacts with texas
A.