or are related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. Intera, 428 F.3d at 615. Both the Tennessee Supreme Court and this Court use the same three-part test to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists. First, the defendant must purposefully avail himself of the privilege of acting in the forum state or causing a consequence in the forum state. Second, the cause of action must arise from the defendant’s activities there. Finally, the acts of the defendant or consequences caused by the defendant must have a substantial enough connection with the forum state to make the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant reasonable. Intera, 428 F.3d at 615 (quoting S. Mach. Co. v. Mohasco Indus., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 381 (6th Cir.1968)); see also Masada Investment Corp. v. All 96 (<HOLDING>); Wisconsin Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Pennant Prods.
holding that making phone calls and sending facsimiles into the forum may be sufficient to confer specific jurisdiction holding that a credit card company could not introduce an alternative dispute resolution provision through a bill stuffer where nothing in the original agreement mentioned dispute resolution holding that negotiations by telephone between parties in different states enough to confer personal jurisdiction holding that the defendant companys action in sending a representative to ohio to negotiate a resolution of a prior dispute did not confer personal jurisdiction holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant