( Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 446.) The decisions in Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550 ( Cassiar) and As You Sow v. Crawford Laboratories, Inc. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1859 ( As You Sow) are dispositive. In Cassiar, the defendant was incorporated in Canada and mined and milled raw asbestos in British Columbia.

The undisputed facts establish that Jayone met its burden here. (See Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, 553, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 167 [to prove relatedness prong of specific jurisdiction, plaintiffs in California asbestos litigation did not have to show nonresident defendant sold asbestos fiber to specific jobsites where plaintiffs worked; it was sufficient that "litigation result[ed] from injuries ‘related to’ [defendant's] forum activities of selling asbestos to certain companies located in California"].) In arguing that the relatedness prong is not satisfied in this case, Aekyung relies on the statement in Bristol-Myers that "[t]he bare fact that [the nonresident defendant] contracted with a California distributor is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction in the State."

(Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 415 [104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404]; Shisler v. Sanfer Sports Cars, Inc. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1258-1259.) In Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, the defendant was incorporated in Canada, mined and milled raw asbestos in British Columbia, and sold raw asbestos fibers to manufacturers, including several different companies with California plants. For 38 years, the defendant sold thousands of tons of raw asbestos to California operations.

We cited the principle that "'"[t]he jurisdiction issue . . . is preliminary to, and independent of, any determination of the merits of [plaintiff's] claims."'" (Hindin v. Rust, supra, B124816, at p. 14, quoting Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, 559.) Our analysis of the evidence in Hindin v. Rust, supra, B124816, demonstrates, however, that there is sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact as to Rust's personal liability on the basis of his role in initiating and prosecuting the federal action.

The sales by Faygo to Real Soda do not meet this test, largely because there is no evidence that, at the time of the sales, Faygo controlled resales of the product or even knew the soda was being resold in California. Finally, in Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, specific jurisdiction over a Canadian corporation was properly exercised. The corporation had sold thousands of tons of raw asbestos over a 38-year period directly to California plants.

Although a defendants alleged wrongful activity need not arise out of the particular contacts with the forum state to support specific jurisdiction (Vons Companies, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 452), where, as here, the claimed contacts are sporadic and minimal, the plaintiff must show a greater relationship between the contact and the claim. (Id. at pp. 455-458; Cassiar Mining Corp. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 550, 556-559.) Under these principles, there was insufficient evidence that the fraud claims arose out of, or were related to, Majors limited contacts with California.