(internal quotations omitted). Applying that reasoning, the Burger King Court held that Rudzewicz’s negotiation of a 20-year agreement with Burger King, which contemplated “continuing and wide-reaching contacts with Burger King in Florida ... can in no sense be viewed as ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or ‘attenuated.’ ” Id. at 480, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citations omitted). Despite citing language from Burger King, the majority appears to disregard its fundamental import. The majority arrives at its finding of no personal jurisdiction by breaking the argument and evidence into discrete and distorted portions and addressing them seriatim, rather than viewing the relationship in its entirety. First, for example, although the majority recognizes that . v. Euroglas, 107 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). . In the instant case, in contrast, the
holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment holding that trademark infringement under michigan common law is governed by the likelihood of confusion standard holding that a question of fact existed as to whether defendants alleged predicate acts directly injured plaintiff under the parties real estate development contract after defendants forced plaintiff out of further development of the property holding that consulting contract that was initiated by plaintiff michigan company in europe for development of a european facility and governed under european law was insufficient to establish jurisdiction over defendants particularly in light of the special considerations involving international defendants