With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". part of the guaranty agreement, and because the agreement was executed in California, the application of our traditional lex loci contractus rule results in the application of California law. Walter E. Heller & Co. v. Stephens, 79 N.M. 74, 77, 439 P.2d 723, 726 (1968); Boggs v. Anderson, 72 N.M. 136, 140, 381 P.2d 419, 422 (1963). Although the Hiatts may have reasonably foreseen that the execution or breach of the guaranty agreement would have some impact in this state, they did not take any actions so as to purposefully avail themselves of the benefits and protections of New Mexico law. Although this Court has not recently considered the question presented in this case— whether assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantors offends the requirements of 0 (10th Cir.1971) (<HOLDING>). In addition to the federal courts, state

A: holding that being a guarantor alone is an insufficient basis to invoke personal jurisdiction
B: holding no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor
C: holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment
D: holding that parole status alone is insufficient to justify search of a parolee
A.