in Utah by a litigant, for example, . . . would not provide a sufficiently rational nexus to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction”). Based on the facts of this case, we conclude there is no rational nexus between the State of Utah and the parties to or the actions contemplated by the Agreement. Therefore, we conclude the forum selection clause in the Agreement is unenforceable under Utah law, and Utah does not have personal jurisdiction. iv: North Carolina Jurisdiction We must now determine whether the State of North Carolina has subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Pursuant to either North Carolina or Utah law, North Carolina has subject matter jurisdiction. See Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C. App. 666, 668, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-240) (<HOLDING>); see also Herzog v. Bramel, 23 P.2d 345, 348
holding that the information must establish that the court has jurisdiction over both the subject matter and the parties holding that our courts are bound by the united states supreme courts interpretation of the federal constitution holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that standing is implicit in trial courts subject matter jurisdiction to consider case holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction