With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". analyzing personal jurisdiction, this Court must determine: First, whether the defendant purposefully directed its activities at the residents of the forum; Second, whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and Third, (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. 3D Systems, Inc., 160 F.3d at 1373, citing Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1545-46 (Fed.Cir.1996). According to these requirements, the Court has the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over PC Connection, Inc. PC Connection, Inc.’s ownership and operation of interactive Web sites that enable Ohio consumers to purchase products for delivery in Ohio constitutes the purposeful direction of activities to Ohio residents. See Bird v. Parsons, 289 F.3d 865, 874 (6th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); CompuServe Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257,

A: holding that a high degree of foreseeability is required to impose a duty to hire security guards and that the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely if ever can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents of violent crime on the landowners premises
B: holding that the wellestablished rule is that it is the function of the state to determine how its residents may enter into the marital relationship
C: holding that operation of web site can constitute purposeful availment if it is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state
D: holding constitutional provision selfexecuting if it grants right that can be put into operation without further legislative action
C.