forum. Id. Jurisdiction is not avoided, however, solely because the defendant was not physically present in the forum. Id. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174. The Tenth Circuit has explained that the key issue is whether the defendant’s contacts are attributable to his own actions, typically requiring affirmative conduct by the defendant which enables or promotes the transaction of business in the forum state. Rambo v. American S. Ins. Co., 839 F.2d 1415, 1420 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir.1986)). Here, the court concludes that plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to establish that defendants have minimum contacts with the forum state. The parties' course of dealing inclu p., No. 98-2328-JWL, 1998 WL 928393 (D.Kan. Oct. 6, 1998) (<HOLDING>). Here, defendants were aware that they were
holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it chose to enter into a contract with the plaintiff that was to be performed at least in part in kansas and then the defendant continued to be in contact with the plaintiff regarding the contract holding that the defendant had minimum contacts with kansas because it responded to the plaintiffs offer to contract despite the fact that a contract was never formally signed holding that the plaintiffs claims arose from a certain contract because the subject matter of the plaintiffs suit was intertwined with requirements referred to in the contract holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant holding personal jurisdiction did not exist over the londonbased international amateur athletic federation iaaf despite the fact that its member organization in the usa had minimum contacts with ohio where the plaintiffs contract claim did not arise out of iaafs contacts with ohio