the nonresident defendant had established minimum contacts with Rhode Island because the defendant possessed, as assignee, an interest in a mortgage that the assignor had allegedly originated in Rhode Island. Id. The court determined that the assignor’s “origination of the loan in Rhode Island is irrelevant to [the defendant’s] contacts with the state,” because the court could not find minimum contacts on the basis of the un 8 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)); cf. Smith v. Halliburton Co., 118 N.M. 179, 187, 879 P.2d 1198, 1206 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, (May 16, 1994) (“[C]ontacts with a forum state are not attributed or imputed to a successor corporation solely through acquisition of assets and liabilities_”). But see Stavrides v. Zerjav, 848 S.W.2d 523, 528-29 (Mo.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Although the Court does not have personal
holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor 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 nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state