City] had already established, and did not purposefully avail [themselves] of the ‘privilege of conducting activities within’ New Mexico, ‘thus invoking the benefits and protections’ of New Mexico law.” Customwood Mfg., Inc. v. Downey Constr. Co., 102 N.M. 56, 58, 691 P.2d 57, 59 (1984) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1240)). Additionally, no choice of law provision favoring New Mexico was included a also hold that merely signing a guaranty, in and of itself, is insufficient contact to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Edwards v. Geosource, Inc., 473 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (“signing a promissory obligation, in and of itself, is insufficient contact to confer personal jurisdiction”); Sibley v. Superior Court, 546 P.2d 322, 325 (Cal.1976) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 826, 97 S.Ct. 82, 50
recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired holding that petitioner did not purposefully avail himself of the privilege of conducting business in california or of the benefits and protections of california laws where petitionerguarantor had executed a guaranty in florida guaranteeing payments to a california partnership holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents holding that the ninth circuit is bound by the california supreme courts interpretation of california law