Page:Soma v. SCB.pdf/6

 :8. traveling to this state by way of salespersons, etc.;
 * 9. paying taxes in this state;
 * 10. visiting potential customers in this state;
 * 11. recruiting employees in the state; and
 * 12. generating a substantial percentage of its national sales through revenue generated from in-state customers.

Buddensick, 972 P. 2d at 930–31. It is undisputed that SCB does none of those things. Soma argues that, because SCB filed a small number of UCC financing statements and recorded several instruments in Utah, all evidencing various SCB security interests, and because it filed five civil cases in Utah prior to 1992 to recover monies and/or foreclose on trust deeds, SCB is subject to general jurisdiction. We disagree. Those are not the kinds of activities which Utah courts, and federal courts applying Utah law, have held constitute the kind of “substantial and continuous local activity” necessary to subject SCB to general jurisdiction. See ,e. g., Beck v. D’Amour S. A., 923 F. Supp. 196, 199–200 (D. Utah 1996); Harnischfeger Eng’rs, Inc., 883 F. Supp. at 612; Frontier Fed. Savings & Loan Ass’n v. National Hotel Corp., 675 F. Supp. 1293, 1296 (D. Utah 1987); Buddensick, 972 P. 2d at 931.

Soma further argues SCB’s maintenance of a website, accessible from Utah, also constitutes “substantial and continuous local activity” for general jurisdiction purposes. While neither our court nor the Utah Supreme Court has specifically addressed this issue yet, a federal district court judge in Utah has addressed the circumstances in which a website will subject an entity to personal