With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". did not waive personal jurisdiction because service had never been effectuated. Here, Myers was validly served, and to the extent valid service on Myers confers personal jurisdiction, Fisher is inapposite. More importantly, the issue of whether there is an invalid retroactive application of personal jurisdiction may involve other issues; for example, whether valid service by publication confers personal jurisdiction on the district court in the way that personal service might confer personal jurisdiction such that there is no retroactivity issue but instead, only a waiver issue. Myers did not cite Fisher or raise the issue of retroactive waiver of personal jurisdiction in either the district court or in its briefing, instead presenting the argument and authori 1138, 1140 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Because Myers’ general appearance did not

A: holding the notice of appearance was not a motion under rule 12b2 4 or 5 and therefore the filing of the notice constituted a voluntary appearance by the defendants in this action which was the equivalent of the service of the summons upon them
B: holding that an attorneys filing a notice of appearance on behalf of his or her client constitute a waiver of service of process by the client
C: holding that a defendants actual knowledge that an action is pending or that service has been attempted is not the equivalent of service of summons and will not relieve the plaintiff of its burden or vest the court with jurisdiction
D: holding a general appearance constitutes voluntary submission to the personal jurisdiction of the court
A.