this proposed analogy, pointing out that “petitioners are not charged with mere untargeted negligence. Rather, their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at California.” Id. Subsequent cases from this circuit bear out the conclusion that “express aiming” encompasses wrongful conduct individually targeting a known forum resident. In Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Neaves, 912 F.2d 1062 (9th Cir.1990), we held that an Alabama resident could be haled into a California court on the basis of a letter she sent to an insurance company representing that she was entitled to an insurance payment that actually belonged to a California resident. We stated that under Colder, it was irrelevant where the letter was sent. The critical factor was that in sending 987) (<HOLDING>); Haisten v. Grass Valley Med. Reimbursement
holding that foreseeability of causing injury in forum state is not sufficient for specific personal jurisdiction holding that limited jurisdiction existed over foreign defendants given their intent to affect the forum their licensing agreements and coordination of release strategies noting that the three foreign defendants did more than merely have their music product end up in california by happenstance as tjhere were crosslicensing agreements between all of the members of the universal group and a coordinated plan existed among  all of the defendants to distribute the barbie girl song around the world including the united states recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that specific jurisdiction existed where defendant performed foreign acts for the purpose of having their consequences felt in the forum state holding that specific jurisdiction existed in light of evidence of targeting of the plaintiff who was a forum resident