acts of third parties. Id. The Barry decision is precisely analogous to the present matter insofar as Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has established minimum contacts with New Mexico because it possesses, as assignee, an interest in the New York Mortgage that the RTC, as assignor, negotiated and executed in New Mexico. This Court finds, as did the Barry court, that the RTC’s negotiation and execution of the Note and the New York Mortgage in New Mexico are irrelevant to Defendant’s contacts with New Mexico, because the RTC’s actions are “the unilateral activit[ies] of [a party] other than the non-resident [Defendant [and] cannot satisfy the requirement of [Defendant’s contact with the forum state.” Id.; see also Conwed Corp. v. Nortene, S.A., 404 F.Supp. 497, 501-02 (D.Minn.1975) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253,
holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor holding that a choice of law provision is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state 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 holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant