With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955). 29 . Id. 30 . City of Andover v. Sw. Bell Tel. L.P., 37 Kan.App.2d 358, 153 P.3d 561, 565 (2007). 31 . Plaintiff withdraws his related claim that GB Miami did not own shares of ACTP stock at the time it exercised the Call Right. 32 . See Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., 431 F.3d 1241, 1255 (10th Cir.2005) (citing Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941)). 33 . Ling v. Jan's Liquors, 237 Kan. 629, 703 P.2d 731, 735 (1985). 34 . Jayhawk Capital Mgmt., LLC v. LSB Indus., Inc., 2012 WL 4210462, at *7 (D.Kan.2012) (quoting Brown v. Mailman, 1995 WL 716785, at *3 (D.Kan. Nov. 13, 1995) (<HOLDING>)). 35 . Id. (citing Consol. Beef Indus., Inc.

A: holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty
B: holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty can be resolved under connecticut law
C: holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action
D: holding that breach of fiduciary duty claim was preempted by fehba
A.