With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis intentionally directed tortious actions towards an Oklahoma resident. Plaintiffs additionally assert that Sehultheis hired an Oklahoma attorney to represent him from 1997 until 2001, which establishes additional contact with Oklahoma. Plaintiffs maintain that Sehultheis has sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to satisfy the first prong of the minimum contact analysis for specific personal jurisdiction. Defendant maintains that Sehultheis did not call Clark but acknowledge that for the purpose of determining personal jurisdiction the Court may consider the Plaintiffs representation that the call was made. However, Defendants maintain that the telephone call is insufficient. See also Far West Capital Inc. v. Towne, 46 F.3d 1071, 1076-77 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Misco-United Supply Inc. v. Richards of

A: holding one phone call by itself insufficient to find minimum contacts
B: holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts
C: holding defendants phone calls and ten to twenty faxes and letters insufficient contacts for minimum contacts
D: holding that a contract governing a onetime sale and purchase of a product negotiated by fax and phone is insufficient to establish minimum contacts where delivery actually occurred in another state
C.