Cited by

the requisite activity must instead be purposefully directed at the forum.”); ¶ 24 (App. 2015) (finding that simply accepting a trustee appointment for Arizona trusts did not create personal jurisdiction over the defendant trustee).

¶11 “Specific jurisdiction ‘exists only for the particular claim asserted’ and only when the defendant’s ‘activities in the forum state giving rise to the claim establish the necessary minimum contacts with the state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable and just.’” Ameika, 1 CA-CV 24- 0045, at *4 ¶ 17 ( ¶ 19 (App. 2015)).

¶12 “To determine whether [a defendant] is subject to the jurisdiction of Arizona, we examine the totality of its jurisdictional contacts.” ¶ 20 (App. 2015).

¶17 Specific jurisdiction “exists only for the particular claim asserted” and only when the defendant's “activities in the forum state giving rise to the claim establish the necessary minimum contacts with the state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable and just.” ¶ 19 (App. 2015).

¶10 Specific jurisdiction “exists only for the particular claim asserted” and only when the defendant’s “activities in the forum state giving rise to the claim establish the necessary minimum contacts with the state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable and just.” ¶ 19 (App. 2015).

¶11 Specific jurisdiction “exists only for the particular claim asserted” and only when the defendant’s “activities in the forum state giving rise to the claim establish the necessary minimum contacts with the state to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable and just.” ¶ 19 (App. 2015).

122, ¶¶ 10, 17 (App. 2015).

¶ 29 (App. 2015), as amended (Sept.

¶ 8 (App.2015); ¶ 11 (App. 2015).