allow a plaintiff to claim the state's accounts receivable only if under federal law those accounts themselves belonged to the plaintiff. That does not imply that a plaintiff could garnish unrelated funds. We express no opinion on this broader question. 6 . Indeed, it is not clear that the state has yet received full reimbursement for its Medicaid payments, in which case Harris’s claim would relate only to some future receipt of funds by the state. 7 . We assume, without deciding, that a portion of the claims settled in the Master Settlement Agreement were for Medicaid claims, because the settlement agreement explicitly included health-related claims and Colorado’s complaint sought damages that included amounts for "increased Medicaid payments. ” But see Watson, 261 F.3d at 443-45
recognizing this texas rule holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that jurisdiction existed over nonresident printing customer despite the fact that texas printer solicited the business in alabama and nonresident sent no personnel to texas because nonresident placed additional orders from which it expected to profit sent payments to texas sent and received printing materials to and from texas paid for shipping of printed goods from texas and sent payments to texas the transactions were governed by texas law and substantial part of performance occurred in texas holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine holding that texas did not settle individual medicaid claims