Following Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, this decision holds that the district court erred in judging specific personal jurisdiction on the particular transaction that gave rise to the lawsuit rather than on the whole business relationship between the parties, of which the particular transaction was a part.  Defendant was a Honduran company that imported into Honduras rice and corn it purchased in large quantities over a course of quite a few years from plaintiff.  The continuous course of purchases from a California company, together with visits to its California headquarters to negotiate some of the purchases was a sufficient availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum to satisfy due process.  The court also had personal jurisdiction over the two individual officers of Beneficio who had come to Calfiornia to negotiate the purchases and who had signed a guaranty of payment for them.  Activities the officers performed in California for their corporation counted towards personal jurisdiction over them individually.  The Ninth Circuit does not follow the corporate shield doctrine.  See  Davis v. Metro Prods., Inc. (9th Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 515.  The defendants’ forum non conveniens motion should have been denied.  Some witnesses were in California, some in Honduras.  It would be dangerous for American creditors to travel to Honduras to try to collect there a debt owed by Hondurans.