With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 12-4) (“Cantor Aff.”); (9) Samsung's Reply Brief (Docket No. 16) ("Def. Reply”); (10) Byung Jik Cha’s second affidavit (Docket No. 16) (“Cha II Aff.”) and (11) the letter from Dr. Edward Michna (Docket No. 18) (“Michna Letter”). 2 . This information comes from Samsung’s website and refers to Samsung's business in 2008. (Cantor Aff. at Ex. A). 3 . The First Circuit has clarified that "the term ‘oppressiveness and vexation’ neither created an independent standard nor raised the bar for dismissal in forum non conveniens cases." Iragorri v. Int’l Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8, 15 (1st Cir.2000). 4 . This concession may be insufficient as defendant has not proffered any evidence that a defendant has the ability to waive a statute of limitations defense in Korea. See Mercier I, 935 F.2d at 426 (<HOLDING>). However, even assuming that the statute of

A: holding that despite defendants willingness to abandon statute of limitations defenses the plaintiffs must be given an opportunity to address the question of whether foreign courts would accept such a waiver
B: recognizing that the statute of limitations provision of the aedpa is an affirmative defenses rather than jurisdictional
C: holding that the courts statute of limitations is jurisdictional in nature and is thus not subject to waiver or estoppel
D: holding that generally the question of waiver and estoppel is a question of fact
A.