Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Indiana resident.”). Moreover, Chami’s allegedly defamatory statements on the Website create sufficient minimum contacts. The parties disagree about the relevant standard. Chami focuses on case law regarding commercial internet sites and their relative interactivity. See, e.g., Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546, 550-51 (7th Cir.2004). However, this case does not deal with injury resulting from the purchase of products or services through a website. See id. Rather, Noble Roman’s asserts Chami committed an intentional tort against it and that Chami’s behavior created minimum contacts with Indiana because the effects of Chami’s intentional tort were felt in Indiana. Thus, this case is more in line with Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 788-89, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984) (<HOLDING>). The fact that Chami used a different medium 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding californias courts had personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants from florida because california was the focal point of both the libelous newspaper article written by defendants and the harm suffered by the plaintiff (C) holding that personal jurisdiction in california was appropriate over nonresident journalist where harmful effects of allegedly defamatory article would be exclusively felt in california and california was the state of newspapers greatest circulation (D) holding that nonresident defendants failure to make payments in florida coupled with forum selection clause sufficient for court to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant (E) holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
Output (English): holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor