personal jurisdiction. See id. at 800 (noting that, in circumstances like these, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing through its pleadings and affidavits that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant is proper). First, it is beyond cavil that Daniele’s alleged contacts with Nevada are not “substantial, continuous, and systematic.” Second, Daniele’s status as SBR’s paid agent does not establish jurisdiction over him. While an agent’s contacts may be imputed to the principal for purposes of personal jurisdiction, the converse is not true. See Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1189 (9th Cir.2002) (imputing an agent’s contacts to the principal); Holland America Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä North America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 459 (9th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs’ attempts to impute SBR’s contacts
holding that parent is liable for acts of subsidiary under agency theory only if parent dominates subsidiary parent of whollyowned subsidiary that had seats on board took part in financing and approved major policy decisions was not liable because parent did not have daytoday control holding that a close relationship between a parent corporation and a subsidiary may justify finding that the parent engages in business in the jurisdiction through the local activities of its subsidiary recognizing separate corporate identity of parent despite evidence that parent was alterego of its subsidiary and was being sued for acts of its subsidiary holding that a subsidiarys contacts can be imputed for purposes of service of process where a parent uses the subsidiary to do what it otherwise would have done itself  holding that a parent corporations contacts may not be imputed to its subsidiary