against jurisdiction is the possibly tenuous interest of the State in providing a forum for Mr. Stann’s claims. Given the other factors, however, I would conclude that Mr. Levine had sufficient minimum contacts to support jurisdiction with respect to the criminal conversation claim. Compare Eluhu, 159 N.C. App. at 360-61, 583 S.E.2d at 711-12 (affirming grant of motion to dismiss when the evidence disclosed little, if any, connection between defendant’s contacts with North Carolina and plaintiff’s cause of action; plaintiff appeared to be forum shopping; litigation would be inconvenient for defendant, who was a resident of California; and plaintiff, a resident of Tennessee, had no claim that North Carolina should provide a forum) with Fox, 176 N.C. App. at 560, 626 S.E.2d at 845 (<HOLDING>). While I acknowledge that unlike in Fox, the
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 mere ownership of property in north carolina is not sufficient to establish the necessary minimum contacts for purposes of general jurisdiction 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 trial court properly concluded minimum contacts existed when defendant had numerous telephone conversations with plaintiffs husband a resident of north carolina along with email messages and sexual relations there was a direct relationship between plaintiffs injuries and defendants contacts plaintiff a resident of north carolina could not bring suit in defendants home state because of abolition of the causes of action and defendant although residing in georgia would have only a minimal travel burden 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