With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Formanski’s service was not defective under Connecticut law, and the Court has personal jurisdiction over Puzycki. Connecticut law allows certain defendants to file a type of third-party complaint, called an “apportionment complaint,” for the purpose of apportioning the liabilities of joint tortfeasors when not all of the tortfeasors are party to the original action. Connecticut law requires these complaints to be filed “within one hundred twenty days of the return date specified in the plaintiffs original complaint.” Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-102b(a). Proper service is mandatory and failure to properly serve an apportionment complaint is the basis for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Lostritto v. Cmty. Action Agency of New Haven, Inc., 269 Conn. 10, 33, 848 A.2d 418 (Conn.2004) (<HOLDING>). Following Lostritto, the Connecticut Supreme

A: holding that the statutory requirement that a defendant serve any apportionment complaint within 120 days of the return date of the original complaint is mandatory and implicates a courts personal jurisdiction
B: holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the case without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to properly serve the defendant within 120 days after filing the complaint
C: holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint
D: holding that noncompliance with general statutes  52102b which requires service of apportionment complaint within 120 days after return date of original complaint implicated personal jurisdiction
A.