9. Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract, which Defendant breached. Plaintiff sued Defendant in California where they both lived and where the contract was to be performed. After a trial on the merits, Plaintiff learned that Defendant owned real estate in Delaware. As a result, she sought to enforce her judgment by attaching the real estate in Delaware. Is such an attachment proper? A. This is a quasi-in-rem type II action. The Supreme Court held that such actions violate due process; therefore, the attachment is improper. B. The Supreme Court held that attachment of real property does not violate due process. Therefore, the attachment is proper. C. Because the claim for breach of contract does not relate to or arise out of the property, the attachment is improper because it violates due process. D. The original iudgment was proper. The attachment is proper because of the full faith and credit clause