with the proposal that plaintiffs buy the business. Plaintiffs also submit an affidavit stating that the first meeting about the proposed purchase occurred in Ohio, and that extensive negotiations occurred between the parties by mail, telephone, and facsimile, which negotiations were conducted by plaintiffs from Clermont County, Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that when a defendant negotiated a contract by telephone with a plaintiff located in Ohio and mailed the contract to Ohio, the facts were sufficient to establish that Ohio courts had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Kentucky Oaks Mall Co. v. Mitchell’s Formal Wear, Inc. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 73, 559 N.E.2d 477. See, also, Hammill Mfg. Co. v. Quality Rubber Prod., Inc. (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 369, 612 N.E.2d 472 (<HOLDING>); Cincinnati Art Galleries v. Fatzie (1990), 70
holding that the mere delivery of documents  does not confer jurisdiction holding that a states law is materially different from california law if application of the other states law leads to a different result holding that negotiations by telephone between parties in different states enough to confer personal jurisdiction holding that summary judgment order that does not dispose of all claims between parties does not confer appellate jurisdiction because it is not a final decision under 28 usc  1291 holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant