should interpret Utah’s statute similarly. We are unpersuaded. While violating a federal statute may grant personal jurisdiction in any federal court, state statutes cannot properly create such wide latitude in the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1315 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Johnson v. Creative Arts & Wool Masters, Inc., 743 F.2d 947, 950 (1st Cir.1984) (“Minimum contacts with a particular district or state ... is not a limitation imposed on the federal courts in a federal question case by due process concerns.”)). In addition, the phrase “wherever he may be found” in the federal statute does not obviate the necessity that the court find minimum contacts between the United States and the defendant. See McNamara, 46 F.Supp.2d at 633 (<HOLDING>). ¶23 Minimum contacts are always necessary for
holding that personal jurisdiction is proper if party has sufficient minimum contacts holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant 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 personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum 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