With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". . Complaint, ¶ 123, Step 7. 7 . Complaint, ¶¶ 125-137. 8 . Complaint, ¶¶ 138-156. 9 . Complaint, ¶¶ 157-165. 10 . See Complaint, count I, introductory paragraph preceding ¶ 166. 11 . See Complaint, ¶¶ 168-169. 12 . Complaint, ¶¶ 32, 33, 50. 13 . The remaining counts, including counts V and VI, for violations of Florida’s RICO Act and civil theft, respectively, are brought against certain named defendants not including AFE or Eide. Likewise, count IX for breach of fiduciary duty and count X for equitable accounting and turnover are brought against certain named defendants not including AFE or Eide. Accordingly, this Order does not address or encompass those counts. 14 .Adversary Doc. 133, 134. 15 . MDM Group Assocs., Inc. v. Midgett Realty, Inc., 2008 WL 2756926 (D.Colo. July 14, 2008) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Michaels Building Co. v. Ameritrust Co.,

A: holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing does not toll defendants time for filing a notice of appeal
B: holding that copying is only evidence of secondary meaning if the defendants intent in copying is to confuse consumers and pass off his product as the plaintiffs in that situation the defendants belief that plaintiffs trade dress has acquired secondary meaning  so that his copying will indeed facilitate his passing off  is some evidence that the trade dress actually has acquired secondary meaning
C: holding that all claims arising from the same employment relationship constitute the same transaction or series of transactions for claim preclusion purposes
D: holding that the alleged unauthorized copying of the plaintiffs copyrighted marketing brochure by five unrelated defendants did not constitute a series of transactions for joinder purposes
D.