care and reserve when extending notions of personal jurisdiction into the international field). Canadian General has not purposefully availed itself of the “privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protection of its law.” See Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1240, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). Minnesota has a strong interest in holding parties responsible for environmental harm. But Minnesota clearly has jurisdiction over Domtar, the party that is liable for response costs. Domtar’s suit against Canadian General is basically for indemnification, and although Minnesota has an interest in Canadian General’s indemnification of Domtar, this interest cannot create jurisdiction. See As-ahi, 480 U.S. at 114-15, 107 S.Ct. at 1033 (<HOLDING>). Domtar is free to proceed against Canadian
recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement recognizing conflict between interests of the highest order recognizing a hypothetical situation where california law left a party free to sue on a claim in maryland even after the claim was precluded in california because the california statute of limitations had expired recognizing that california had only minimal interests in an indemnification suit between two foreign nationals holding that california courts assertion of personal jurisdiction over floridabased reporters did not violate due process when allegedly defamatory article that was the basis of the suit focused on the california activities of california residents