Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
if it has “good cause therefor” and if “the dismissal is not to avoid the provisions of Rule 8.” See State v. Johnson, 113 Ariz. 506, 508, 557 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1976) (“Absent a showing of bad faith on the part of the prosecution or prejudice to the defendant, the State may move to dismiss a prosecution, and the court may grant the motion, at any time.”). Once the case is dismissed, the Rule 8 time limits begin anew. State v. Mendoza, 170 Ariz. 184, 187, 823 P.2d 51, 54 (1992). ¶ 21 In this case, the State sought dismissal of the information so that it could present the case to the grand jury under the correct theory of the offense. A trial court could reasonably find that this was “good cause” and “not to avoid the provisions of Rule 8.” See Johnson, 113 Ariz. at 508, 557 P.2d at 1065 . The law does not support the statement that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect
B. holding that the district court which erred in its conclusion that there was jurisdictional defect abused its discretion in denying a plaintiffsmotion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendment would not cure the jurisdictional defect
C. holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this
D. holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect
E. holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.