it offends due process. See, e.g., CYBERsitter v. China, 805 F.Supp.2d 958, 966-967 (C.D.Cal.2011) (discussing personal jurisdiction test). 8 . See also Samco Global Arms, Inc. v. Arita, 395 F.3d 1212, 1217 (11th Cir.2005) (finding that alleged injuries were too indirect and speculative to constitute direct effects); Unit ed World. Trade, Inc. v. Mangyshlakneft Oil Prod. Ass’n, 33 F.3d 1232, 1238 (10th Cir.1994) ("Congress did not intend to provide jurisdiction whenever the ripples caused by an overseas transaction manage eventually to reach the shores of the United States."). 9 . Plaintiffs claim that it is up to defendant to demonstrate that none of these arguments provides "an arguable basis" for jurisdiction under Espinosa, id. at 7, but as explain F.Supp.2d 252, 256 (S.D.N.Y.2005) (<HOLDING>). One case cited by Bell, and the only one from
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 because trademark infringement causes injury in the state where the allegedly infringed intellectual property is held the court had personal jurisdiction over the infringing party holding that the district court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant when the site of a copyright owners alleged injury is the location of the copyright owner holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property