has entered into contracts to supply services in Delaware. Defendant does count 51 Delaware corporations as clients, but plaintiff does not allege that defendant has provided any services to these Delaware clients within Delaware’s borders or has entered into any contracts to do so in the future. Furthermore, defendant’s website and sworn declaration indicate that defendant’s services are only offered within Nevada. Defendant has also on two occasions sent letters into Delaware, to a Delaware corporation (Techno) soliciting b 513 F.Supp. 1043, 1046 (D.Del.1981)). Furthermore, this court has held that the act of mailing tortious material occurs where the material is mailed from, not where the tortious injury is felt. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears plc, 744 F.Supp. 1289, 1294 (D.Del.1990) (<HOLDING>). In sum, defendant’s solicitations do not
holding that subsection c2 of the delaware longarm statute requires that service contracts must be for services performed in delaware recognizing that federal courts have held that the commission of a tortious act out of state that causes injury to an instate resident satisfies floridas longarm statute holding that under delawares longarm statute mere solicitation does not arise to transacting business holding that under delawares longarm statute the act of mailing for purposes of subsection c3 is complete when the material is mailed even if the mailed material causes tortious injury within delaware holding that the alleged fraudulent communications satisfy the causes tortious injury by an act or omission in this state portions of the ohio longarm statute