A plaintiff domiciled in State A brought a wrongful death action in a federal court in State A against a State B parent corporation and one of its foreign subsidiaries. The plaintiff alleged that a tire manufactured by the subsidiary in Europe had caused his wife's death in an automobile accident in Europe.

The parent corporation does significant business throughout the United States, including in State A. The subsidiary conducts no business and has no employees or bank accounts in State A. The subsidiary manufactures its tires for the European market, but 2% of its tires are distributed in State A by the parent corporation. The subsidiary has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Should the court grant the subsidiary's motion?

A. No, because 2% of the subsidiary's tires entered State A through the stream of commerce.

B. No, because of the general personal jurisdiction established over the parent corporation.

C. Yes, because the accident did not occur in the United States.

D. Yes, because the subsidiary lacks continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with State A.