Looking as well at the โexceptional caseโ carve-out in Daimler, Brown argues further that, because Lockheed has had some kind of physical presence in Connecticut for โat least 30 years,โ Appellant's Br. at 27, its contacts place it among those โexceptional casesโ in which a foreign corporation is โessentially at homeโ in a state other than its state of incorporation or principal place of business. Brown cites Erb v. Roadway Express, Inc., No. 05โ0011, 2005 WL 1215955 (M.D.Pa. Apr. 19, 2005); Inversiones Inmobiliarias el Bosque, S.A. v. Transtainer Corp., No. 03โ0962, 2004 WL 325615 (E.D.La. Feb. 18, 2004); Sys. Material Handling Co. v. Greenstein, 84 F.Supp.2d 1203 (D.Kan.2000); WMW Mach., Inc. v. Werkzeugmaschinenhandel GmbH IM Aufbau, 960 F.Supp. 734 (S.D.N.Y.1997); United States v. Nippon Paper Indus. Co., 944 F.Supp. 55 (D.Mass.1996), rev'd on other grounds, 109 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.1997); Lane v. Vacation Charters, Ltd., 750 F.Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y.1990). Brown had a stronger, if not ultimately persuasive, argument on this score in 2012, when suit was filed.
This fact might be read as an indicator of intent-at least on Mackie's part-that the recent prior oral agreement between Mackie and plaintiff for the sale and purchase of the same shares would likewise be governed by Maryland law. See, e.g., Sys. Material Handling Co. v. Greenstein, 84 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1214 (D. Kan. 2000) (citing Bradley v. Dean Witter Realty, Inc., 967 F.Supp. 19, 24 (D. Mass. 1997) (considering the choice-of-law provision in an earlier contract as evidence of the parties' intent to use that state's law in a subsequent separate oral contract). This argument would be colorable if not entirely persuasive.
There are, however, certain factors courts analyze when performing the general jurisdiction analysis, such as: "(1) whether the corporation solicits business in the state through a local office or agents; (2) whether the corporation sends agents into the state on a regular basis to solicit business; (3) the extent to which the corporation holds itself out as doing business in the forum state, through advertisements, listings or bank accounts; and (4) the volume of business conducted in the state by the corporation." Trierweiler v. Croxton Trench Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523, 1533 (10th Cir. 1996) (citing 4 CHARLES A. WRIGHT ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ยง 1069, at 348-55 (2d ed. 1987)); see also Sys. Material Handling Co. v. Greenstein, 84 F. Supp.2d 1203, 1209 (D. Kan. 2000). Further, the Supreme Court in Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co., found the following facts sufficient for general jurisdiction: (1) maintaining an office in the forum state; (2) keeping company files and holding director's meetings in the forum office; (3) carrying on correspondence relating to the business in the forum state; (4) distributing salary checks drawn on bank accounts located in the forum state; (5) using a forum bank to act as a transfer agent; and (6) supervising, from within the forum state, policies relating to the rehabilitation of the company's properties outside the forum state.
Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262.266 (9th Cir. 1991). See also Katz v. City of Aurora. 85 F. Supp.2d 1012, 1017 (D. Colo. 2000); Systems Material Handling Co. v. Greenstein, 84 F. Supp.2d 1203, 1212 (D. Kan. 2000). This caselaw, however, is not on point and is not applicable. These cases deal with the situation in which the party opposing summary judgment, not the proponent, attempts to create a sham fact issue by offering new testimony that contradicts prior testimony.
4 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure at ยง 1069, at 348-55 (2d ed. 1987)." Systems Material Handling Company v. Greenstein, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1209 (D. Kan. 2000). Applying these factors to Bayer Corporation, we conclude it had continuous and systematic contacts with Kansas by virtue of its Animal Health Division operating in Shawnee, Kansas, and its Crop Science Division operating in Stillwell, Kansas.