Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): has any significant contact with California. DTK-NJ has employees in New Jersey, and has its principal place of business in New Jersey. DTK-NJ has no employees located outside of New Jersey. (Def. Reply to PI. Mem. In Opp’n to Mot. to Transfer, Decl. of Alice Lin ¶ 3.) Although DTK-NJ receives its products for resale from DTK (located in California), see id. ¶ 4, this is not sufficient to establish the minimum contacts described in International Shoe, see Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 473-74, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Under Burger King Corp., the fact that DTK directs its products to DTK-NJ is evidence of DTK establishing contacts with New Jersey as opposed to DTK-NJ establishing sufficient minimum contacts with California. 471 U.S. at 472, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (<HOLDING>); see also Asahi Metal Indus. v. Superior 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an intentional tort knowingly directed at a forum resident satisfies the minimum contacts test (B) holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum (C) holding that the court must look for continuous and systematic general business contacts  ie general jurisdiction  if the causes of action do not arise from or relate to the foreign defendants contacts with the forum state (D) holding that minimum contacts exist if the defendant has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities (E) holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas
Output (English): holding that sufficient minimum contacts exist when nonresident defendant purposefully directed action toward texas