With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". jurisdiction over Daniele. Plaintiffs assert three distinct bases of jurisdiction: that SBR paid Daniele to publish infringing material on SBR’s message board, that Daniele’s publications relate to the “sports wagering” industry in Nevada, and that Daniele’s publications were accessible in Nevada through the internet. Even accepting these assertions as true, these are not the type of contacts that give rise o Daniele must therefore fail. Third, the fact that Daniele’s publications related to sports wagering does not establish jurisdictional contacts with Nevada. Plaintiffs urge that the publications were directed at Nevada since the publications discussed sports wagering and since sports wagering is only legal in Nevada (within the United States). Bu F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256,

A: holding that posting of infringing copyrighted material may give rise to jurisdiction where the victiimplaintiff was a resident of the forum state
B: holding that the basis of in rem jurisdiction is the presence of the subject property within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum state
C: recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties
D: holding that fraudulent joinder required a finding that either there was no possibility that the plaintiff could prove a cause of action against the resident defendant or that the plaintiff fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts in order to subject that resident defendant to the jurisdiction of the state court
A.