at 1308-09; Carolina Trucks, 492 F.3d at 489-90, a domestic corporation, cf. S.K.I. Beer, 443 F.Supp.2d at 319-20, or has significant in-state contacts, cf. Dean Foods, 187 F.3d at 618-19. By the same token, the in-state presence of one party to the transaction cannot be used as justification to regulate the other party, cf. A.S. Goldmen, 163 F.3d at 786-87, nor, critically to this case, can the in-state performance of a counterparty be used to regulate the other party, cf. Mills, 593 F.3d at 668-69; Ripley, 616 F.Supp.2d at 904-06 & n. 5. If the transaction at issue is consummated out of state, none of these in-state “hooks” will permit a state to regulate the extraterritorial commerce. Even a de minimis regulation may fall afoul of the Constitution. Cf. Abrams, 720 F.Supp. at 287-88 (<HOLDING>). a. Defendants’ Motion Defendants argue that
holding that  16913a violates the commerce clause holding  13981 constitutional under the commerce clause holding rational basis as standard for commerce clause inquiries holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause holding that notice requirement for malfunctioning vehicles innocuous as it is violated the commerce clause