With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an additional instance in which Cameco purposefully and knowingly availed itself of a business opportunity in Colorado. Cameco argues that Mr. Benton’s presence in Colorado is a mere coincidence that is inadequate to confer specific jurisdiction over Cameco. However, we do not agree that “[t]he quality and nature” of Cameco’s contact with Colorado was “so ... random, fortuitous, [and] attenuated that it cannot fairly be said that [Cameco] should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” in Colorado. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 486, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citations and quotation marks omitted). This is not a case in which the defendant’s only contacts with the forum resulted from “the mere unilateral activity” of the plaintiff. See World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559 (<HOLDING>); Hanson, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2

A: holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant car manufacturer was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffs unilateral activity of driving defendants product into another state
B: holding that personal jurisdiction over defendant trustee was inappropriate when defendants only contacts with the forum resulted from plaintiffsettlors unilateral activity of moving to florida
C: holding that unilateral activity of a third party is not an appropriate consideration in determining what contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes
D: holding consumers unilateral act of taking product to forum state insufficient to subject manufacturer to jurisdiction there
A.