the District, or, where there is no such place of business, by leaving a copy at the place of business or residence of the agent in the District, and that service is effectual to bring the corporation before the court. 2 . See generally Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp., 84 F.3d 560, 5 . 286, 292-93, 294, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) (noting that the “limits imposed on state jurisdiction by the Due Process Clause ... have been substantially relaxed over the years ... largely attributable to a fundamental transformation in the American economy,” and that " ‘[a]s technological progress has increased the flow of commerce between the States, the need for jurisdiction over nonresidents has undergone a similar increase ” ( 308, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (<HOLDING>); McGee, 355 U.S. at 223, 78 S.Ct. at 201
holding that the due process requirements of jurisdiction in michigan had been met for a dispute involving property in tennessee holding that in modern commercial life it matters little that  solicitation is accomplished by a deluge of catalogs rather than a phalanx of drummers that the requirements of due process are met irrespective of a corporations lack of physical presence in the taxing state and that due process therefore permits the imposition of a collection duty on a mailorder house that is engaged in continuous and widespread solicitation of business within a state holding that specific jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state since it is an inescapable fact of  modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines thus obviating the need for physical presence within a state in which business is conducted holding that plaintiffs claim of negligence against a florida corporation predicated on her slip and fall on a cruise ship operated by the company off the coast of california arose out of the alien corporations solicitation of business in the state of washington holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause