that Plaintiff is “registered to do business in the state of Utah” and “uses a third party contractor as it[s] registered agent” in Utah. We believe, under Utah law, this is insufficient to establish a rational nexus. See Jacobsen Constr. Co., 106 P.3d at 728 (“[T]he nexus between the underlying dispute and the State of Utah must be truly ‘rational[,]’ [and] [consequently, the mere presence of a post office box m 33) (“[C]ourts of this state are courts of general jurisdiction, possessing original jurisdiction in all matters civil and criminal not excepted by our Constitution or not prohibited by law”). Moreover, pursuant to either North Carolina or Utah law, North Carolina has personal jurisdiction. See General Foods Corp. v. Morris, 49 N.C. App. 541, 543, 272 S.E.2d 17, 18 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Stunzi v. Medlin Motors, Inc.,__ N.C.
holding that mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction holding the verified complaint in this case alleges that defendant is a citizen and resident of north carolina this is sufficient for the court to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendant holding that north carolina has jurisdiction over a claim arising from an accident in mississippi because the original offer of employment was accepted over the telephone while the employee was in north carolina holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce holding that north carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over illinois bank even though some of its customers resided in north carolina and loan proceeds were used in north carolina