of dealings.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476-481, 105 S.Ct. 2174. Here, however, the plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof, has not demonstrated that the defendant “solicited the business relationship” or that “the contract calls for the performance of work within the District.” Id. The plaintiff ambiguously states that “Vinq subsequently executed a subcontract with Plaeebase,” but it offers no evidence that the defendant solicited the business relationship in the District. Pl.’s Opp’n at 2. Furthermore, the subcontract specifically requires that the defendant “shall perform work at [the defendant’s] offices in California,” Subcontract, Statement of Work at 4, and nothing in the record indicates other contact with D.C. or an intent to supply services in D.C. See e.g. Schwartz. at 6 (<HOLDING>). In addition to failing to show that the first
holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury recognizing a defendants connection to dc because the plaintiff had argued and provided correspondence between the parties demonstrating an ongoing relationship between the parties including the defendant giving the plaintiff directions regarding other business projects that the defendant intended to pursue and argued that the contract would have been at least partly performed within dc holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum