Aaron, citizen of Arizona, brought an action asserting a claim in Nevada federal district court against Neville, a citizen of Nevada, for unfair competition under state law. Neville denied the material allegations in Aaron's claim and asserted his own counterclaim against Aaron for deceptive business practices under state law. Eventually, the district court dismissed Aaron's claim for failure to prosecute and entered a default judgment in favor of Neville on his counterclaim.

Later Neville brought a separate action in Arizona state court seeking full faith and credit to enforce the default judgment as to the deceptive business practices counterclaim he had brought in the Nevada action. Aaron defended on the ground that Arizona should deny full faith and credit because Nevada, in the prior action, lacked personal jurisdiction over Aaron with respect to Neville's counterclaim. In response to Aaron's argument, Neville should argue that Aaron was subject to personal jurisdiction in Nevada because -
Snow brings an action for fraud and misrepresentation in Tomorrowland federal district court against Queen. How should Queen respond?
A) By filing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
B) By filing a counterclaim for defamation
C) By filing a motion to transfer venue
D) By filing an answer denying the allegations