With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2) engaged in the “sale of counterfeit and infringing Louis Vuitton branded products within this Judicial District through multiple fully interactive commercial websites”; (3) purposefully directed illegal activities “towards consumers in ... Florida through the ... sale of counterfeit Louis Vuitton branded goods into the State”; (4) was “selling and/or offering for sale counterfeit products, including at least handbags and wallets, using trademarks which are exact copies of the Louis Vuitton Marks”; and (5) was “actively ... advertising, distributing, selling ... substantial quantities” of these infringing goods in Florida and elsewhere. These allegations established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over Mosseri. See Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). To shift the burden back to the plaintiff, a

A: holding that a nonfrivolous allegation of board jurisdiction is one which if true would establish a prima facie case that the board has jurisdiction over the matter at issue
B: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
C: holding that the plaintiff alleged facts unrebutted by salem that established a prima facie case of jurisdiction over salem
D: holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence
C.