Inc. maintains that the Ohio distribution center is owned and operated by Merrimack Services Corporation (“Merrimack”), the entities share many, if not all, of the same officers and directors. Doc. 11-6, 11-7. When such an overlap of officers and directors exists, personal jurisdiction over a parent is generally found. In re Telec-ironies Pacing Sys. Inc., 953 F.Supp. at 919-920 (where the court found personal jurisdiction over parent where parent and subsidiary shared common officers); Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp., 747 F.Supp. 389, 398 (N.D.Ohio 1990) (where the court found “personal jurisdiction over parent where subsidiaries shared common employees and officers”). B. Federal Due Process For purposes of compliance with federal due process whe 5 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in Neogen Ccnp. v. Neo Gen
holding that defendants contacts with ohio were deliberate and repeated even though they yielded little revenue from ohio holding that the defendants contacts with ohio were sufficient to support the exercise of jurisdiction where defendant consciously reached out from texas to ohio to subscribe to compuserve and sold his software over compuserves ohiobased system recognizing that the ohio longarm statute does not extend to the limits of due process and focusing the inquiry on whether defendant established sufficient business contacts with ohio holding that a maryland court could not exercise jurisdiction over an ohio lawyer when a maryland client initiated five of seven contacts with the lawyer the parties created the attorneyclient relationship in ohio and the attorneyclient relationship involved only events in and the law of ohio holding personal jurisdiction did not exist over the londonbased international amateur athletic federation iaaf despite the fact that its member organization in the usa had minimum contacts with ohio where the plaintiffs contract claim did not arise out of iaafs contacts with ohio