or that any Arizona resident other than the plaintiff had ever visited the site); id. (citing Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, 29 (2d Cir.1997), as holding that New York’s long-arm statute did not extend to the operator of a Missouri jazz club whose website merely had a hyperlink to a New York club of the same name); id. (quoting Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F.3d 333, 337 (5th Cir.1999), as declining to find jurisdiction where the defendant's website was accessible to forum residents, but where “[tjhere was no evidence that [the defendant] conducted business over the Internet by engaging in business transactions with forum residents or by entering into contracts over the Internet”); see also Soma Med. Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d 1292, 1297 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l
holding that the defendant maintained a passive website and was therefore not subject to general jurisdiction holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding that an interactive website allowing clients to bank online was insufficient to confer general jurisdiction over a foreign bank holding that a passive website that merely makes information available is insufficient to confer general jurisdiction holding passive website to be an invalid reason for granting jurisdiction