Under that doctrine, “ ‘jurisdiction may be asserted even if the cause of action is unrelated to defendant’s activities in the forum as long as there are sufficient continuous and systematic contacts between defendant and the forum state.’ ” Id. (quoting Fraser v. Littlejohn, 96 N.C. App. 377, 383, 386 S.E.2d 230, 234 (1989)). Mr. Stann does not make any argument as to general jurisdiction on appeal. Mr. Levine’s affidavit indicates that although he has trav eled through our State, he is not and has never been a resident of North Carolina, nor has he ever owned property or conducted business here. The trial court was entitled to conclude that Mr. Levine lacked sufficient continuous and systematic contacts necessary for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Id. at 618, 532 S.E.2d at 219 (<HOLDING>). See also Fraser, 96 N.C. App. at 383, 386
holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce holding that mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction holding that foreign subsidiaries attenuated connections with north carolina did not show the continuous and systematic general business contacts necessary to empower north carolina to entertain suit against them on unrelated claims holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant