1. Should the requirement that a plaintiffs cause of action arise from or relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with a state apply to foreign national defendants who have extensive contacts within the state?

2. Did the Sixth Circuit fail to abide by the United States Supreme Court's newest ruling regarding personal jurisdiction (Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021)) by basing its ruling solely on the grounds my claim did not "arise from" Wild's business transactions, and by failing to even consider whether my claim is "related to" Wild's business transactions?

Should the requirement that a plaintiff's cause of action arise from or relate to the defendant's minimum contacts with a state apply to foreign national defendants who have extensive contacts within the state?