manufactures the Ima-geDeek abroad, it directs that product into the United States only through its subsidiary, MLI, and only in California. See Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112, 107 S.Ct. 1026, 94 L.Ed.2d 92 (stating that establishing marketing channels for products in a forum may indicate an intent to serve residents of that forum). In addition, if the Plaintiffs’ allegations are correct, certain MII officers are also officers of MLI and are present and available for service in California. These contacts with California are sufficient to confer both venue and jurisdiction in the Central District of California over MEI and all of the Microtek defendants. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 318-20, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (<HOLDING>); Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462,
holding that unilateral activity of a third party is not an appropriate consideration in determining what contacts are sufficient for personal jurisdiction purposes holding that under new jersey law any party that maintains minimum contacts with the  state that are continuous and substantial will be subject to personal jurisdiction holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum holding that the massachusetts longarm statute provides for jurisdiction over a nonresident personal representative when the decedent had sufficient contacts with the forum such that the decedent would have been subject to personal jurisdiction had he lived holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant