Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
expectation that it w[ill] arrive in th[e] forum,” 629 N.W.2d at 675, sufficient to constitute purposeful availment in Maryland. To satisfy the “purposeful availment” requirement in Maryland, mere foreseeability that a defendant’s products will enter the State and cause injury here is insufficient. Bond, 391 Md. at 730, 895 A.2d at 1005. Rather, the defendant must “create a ‘substantial connection’ ” with Maryland such that having to defend a lawsuit in the State would be foreseeable. See Burger King Corp., 471 U.S. at 475, 105 S.Ct. a ng that a Maryland court could exert jurisdiction over a Kentucky resident whose agent engaged in “intensive” negotiations with a temporary resident of Maryland to resolve a contract dispute); Harris v. Arlen Properties, 256 Md. 185, 260 A.2d 22 (1969) . Purposeful availment, however, will not arise
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate real estate development company that scouted potential development sites in maryland and through its agents filed a building permit in the state and arranged for the washington suburban sanitation commission to install a storm drain
B. holding that the university of maryland law school was a state agency
C. holding that a question of fact existed as to whether defendants alleged predicate acts directly injured plaintiff under the parties real estate development contract after defendants forced plaintiff out of further development of the property
D. holding that a maryland court could exercise jurisdiction over an outofstate hospital that provided services to maryland residents and registered as a maryland provider designating itself as a liver transplant referral center
E. holding that a maryland court could not exercise jurisdiction over an ohio lawyer when a maryland client initiated five of seven contacts with the lawyer the parties created the attorneyclient relationship in ohio and the attorneyclient relationship involved only events in and the law of ohio
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.