Id.; Intera, 428 F.3d at 616; Calphalon, 228 F.3d at 721-22. The district court erred in holding that Lloyds purposefully availed itself of the privilege of acting in Tennessee. The wire transfers accepted or confirmed by Lloyds from Tennessee and any wire transfers originated by Hogsed in the United Kingdom and sent to Tennessee cannot constitute purposeful availment, because none of those transfers were initiated by Lloyds. See Calphalon, 228 F.3d at 723 (finding no purposeful availment based on the defendant’s communications and physical visits to Ohio on the basis that because the plaintiff corporation chose to be headquartered in Ohio where the defendant did not seek to further its business there); Int'l Technologies Consultants v. Euroglas, 107 F.3d 386, 395 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); cf. CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d
holding that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident auto distributor whose only connection to the forum resulted from a customers decision to drive there failed to provide the defendant with clear notice that it would be subject to suit in the forum state and thus an opportunity to alleviate the risk of burden some litigation there 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 since the court already determined that it had general jurisdiction over a defendant it was unnecessary to engage in the specific jurisdiction analysis holding that personal jurisdiction was lacking when the only contact by defendant with forum state was initiated by plaintiffs counsels paralegal for the sole purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction holding that the foreigndefendant seller was not subject to personal jurisdiction in michigan since the only reason it had contact with the state was because the plaintiff chose to reside there