With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 325, 334 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.) (“Whether Gordon entered into a joint venture with Bailey or otherwise retained joint responsibility for Bailey’s conduct in Texas is relevant only to Gordon’s liability on the merits. It does not constitute purposeful availment by any activities by Gordon in Texas so as to establish minimum contacts.”); see also PHC-Minden, L.P. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 235 S.W.3d 163, 174-75 (Tex.2007) (noting personal jurisdiction involves due process considerations that may not be overridden by statutes or the common law and distinguishing factors relevant to piercing the corporate veil for liability purposes from those relevant to minimum contacts); Langston, Sweet & Freese, P.A. v. Emster, 255 S.W.3d 402, 410 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, we note that Waller has not yet

A: holding that personal jurisdiction over partner did not follow from jurisdiction over partnership citing sher
B: holding that if state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions the general or residual statute for personal injury actions should be used for 1983 actions
C: holding actions of one partner may be imputed to partnership for personal jurisdiction purposes but are not without more imputed to other partners
D: holding that in states with statutes identical in all relevant respects to wash revcode  25051001 the actions of one partner do not impute to another partner for purposes of personal jurisdiction
C.