Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to establish personal jurisdiction” on the basis of Wendt. In Acquadro, a defamation claim was brought against the nonresident defendant based upon a telephone call from Massachusetts to the plaintiff, the plaintiffs sister, and another third party in Florida in which the defendant stated that the plaintiff “had AIDS.” Id. at 668. The Court noted in a footnote that although the record was not completely clear, it appeared that the telephone call was a conference call in which the third party called the defendant in Massachusetts, and they proceeded to call the defendant in Florida. Id. at 668 n. 7. Other courts, both state and federal, applying Florida law have also held that communications made during a telephone call between a person in Florida and an 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) . In a case on a similar topic but with
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage
B. holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant
C. holding that nonresident limited partners did not have the necessary minimum contacts to sustain personal jurisdiction in florida although partnerships purpose was to develop property in florida
D. holding that a nonresident defendant who called plaintiff in florida and allegedly made misrepresentations during the conversation satisfied 481931b
E. holding that alleged fraudulent statements by the defendants that occurred during a telephone call initiated by the plaintiff satisfied section 481931b citing wendt 822 so2d at 1260
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.