48, and fully “active.” See Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d at 512. Defendant’s website is considerably less “active” than the one described in Gorman, where customers were able to open accounts, transmit funds to their accounts, and buy and sell securities online through Ameritrade’s website. See id. at 513. The defendant’s website, by contrast, does not permit online registration. Instead, interested parties must download an application form, sign it, and return it “along with required identification documents that must be ‘certified by an attorney, a lawyer, an embassy authority, consulate or high commission of the country of issue.’ ” Mot. at 7-8; but see Obabueki v. I.B.M., Inc., Civil No. 99-11262, 2001 WL 921172, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11810 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Defendant’s website has more in common with
holding that a nonresident defendants contract in this case a guaranty with a pennsylvania business entity alone cannot automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts holding that when determining whether a nonresident defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with texas sufficient to support general jurisdiction courts examine the defendants contacts and forumrelated activities only up to the time that suit was filed holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts holding that mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction holding website with downloadable application sufficient to establish contacts