(ComplA 15.) The contacts of an agent may generally be imputed to the principal if those contacts are made within the scope of the agent’s employment. Taylor v. Phelan, 912 F.2d 429, 433 (10th Cir.1990). An agency relationship is “the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.” Kuenzle v. HTM Sport-Und Freizeitgerate, AG, 102 F.3d 453, 459 (10th Cir.1996). Such relationship cannot be presumed but must be clearly demonstrated. Id. Shepherd bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction over IOC and thus of making at least a prima facie showing that an agency relationship exists. Be-hagen, 744 F.2d at 733; Kuenzle, 102 F.3d at 459 (<HOLDING>). As already stated, unlike in Behagen, 744
holding defendant a foreign manufacturer was not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a wyoming court because the plaintiff failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship between the defendant and its us distributor holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction holding that foreign drag manufacturer who marketed its product in kentucky through independent distributor was nonetheless subject to personal jurisdiction in forum under asahis additional conduct standard holding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish an agency relationship for service to be effective holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant