May the plaintiff sue a group of defendant in a state if minimum contacts with the forum state is not shown. Most courts have interpreted 18 U.S.C. section 1965(b) to confer nationwide jurisdiction in a RICO action over nonresident defendants if the plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction over at least one defendant under section 1965(a). See Rolls-Royce Corp. v. Heros, Inc., 576 F.Supp.2d 765, 778-79 (N.D. Tex. 2008) (citing cases); Oblio Telecom, Inc. v. Patel, No. 3-08-CV-0279-L, 2008 WL 4936488 at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2008) (citing cases). If the RICO plaintiff can show that at least one defendant “resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs” in the forum, then jurisdiction is proper as to all other defendants if “the ends of justice require.” Rolls-Royce, 576 F.Supp.2d at 779; Paolino v. Argyll Equities, L.L.C., 401 F.Supp.2d 712, 718 (W.D. Tex. 2005). Rather than having to show the connection with the forum state, due process in such cases is satisfied if the nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States. See Busch, 11 F.3d at 1258; Rolls-Royce, 576 F.Supp.2d at 782.