arising out of the subcontract. Finally, Whiting was not a party to the Cable-La-Williams contract, which contained the Oklahoma forum-selection clause. This evidence demonstrates that under the familiar “minimum contacts” analysis Whiting is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Oklahoma. See generally Lesnick v. Hollingsworth & Vose Co., 35 F.3d 939, 941-46 (4th Cir.1994) (citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)). Thus transferring Cable-La’s third-party complaint to the Northern District of Oklahoma, and thereby forcing Whiting to defend itself in a forum which does not possess personal jurisdiction over it, would be inappropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); 3 Moore’s § 14.42[4] (discussing impact of
holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction holding that section 1406a grants district courts power to transfer cases even where personal jurisdiction is lacking holding that title vii is subject to the transfer provisions of section 1404a holding district lacking personal jurisdiction over defendant not one in which suit might have been brought under section 1404a holding that under 28 usc  1404a might have been brought requirement was not satisfied by defendants consent to jurisdiction