within Nevada. Based on the facts alleged, the Court holds that Risinger’s employment did not arise out of Nevada. In making this determination, the Court finds the following facts relevant: Risinger is a California resident; SOC LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada; SOC-SMG, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada; Day & Zimmerman, Inc. is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania; and outside of a brief training stint in Nevada, SOC employed Risinger exclusively in Iraq. The mere fact that two of the SOC entities operate principally in Nevada does not make the alleged misconduct arise out of Nevada. See, e.g., Glass v. Kemper Corp., 133 F.3d 999, 1000-01 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Tidenberg v. Bidz.com, Inc., No. CV 08-5553
holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois holding illinois wage law only applied where at least some work was performed within the state holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction pursuant to  2209a2 over a defendant who was not transacting  business in illinois within the meaning of  2209al because the plaintiff was a nonillinois corporation and the tort thus occurred outside of illinois holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law