dealing with negotiations between the parties and paragraph eleven you have the negotiations related to the formation of this business partnership between the gentleman in paragraph well you have allegations about sort of activities and having trouble seeing how you get across the finish line on the tort claim even even if i were to agree with you on the contract on sure to it really what we're alleging there and i suppose the best way to look at this is that this asset  sharon ownership interest and and a role in the operation of sprout financial which is a delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in arizona district court concluded based upon the pleadings and the evidence submitted with mr campbell's motion to dismiss that it lacked jurisdiction over campbell and the district court later denied char's motion for reconsideration campbell respectfully request that these orders be affirmed there are two motions at issue as you are well aware st mr starr is appealing the district court order granting mr campbell's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or the court reviews to know that the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction the factual of such motion for abuse of discretion here because footnote one to the appellants reply brief which is dr number twenty four makes clear that it is not intending on appeal that the district court erred in finding it did not have general jurisdiction over campbell mr campbell would not be addressing general jurisdiction would which is not at issue in this appeal but in regard to specific jurisdiction the district court properly concluded that mr campbell did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits of doing business in nevada or purposely directed his activities towards nevada to support specific jurisdiction in making the determination the court considers actions by the defendant himself were put into this business were and part of our right i think that is a fair characterization and then when i look at paragraph three of the the desperation that he submitted for the motion to  the number to apply and receive a merchant account earth sprout white why doesn't that get him over the threshold for the contract based claims st of all with respect to the merchant account and i believe reference financial but it identifies cap and financial it's having an arizona address moreover with respect to cap it's reported merchant account it should be noted that in mr campbell declaration which was filed in support of his motion to dismiss it was stated that it was mr shara who proposed of selling catholic business or continuing that business with than one percent of the total revenue that's an e r to ninety six dollars mr shara had an opportunity to object in his opposition to the motion to dismiss if you found out characterization to be inaccurate in any way he did not the while there may have if i understand mr starr's allegation that kaplan may have had assets even if there were assets in nevada those assets were his algorithm which was with him centrally and in the vote i'm just having trouble seeing how at a motion to dismiss stage where we have to look at all factual disputes in the most favorable to the  nonmoving party why that doesn't work for the contract cleaning well even accepting those allegations are true when we look at the claims that are being asserted by mr starr and this is in his opposition to the motion it's respecting his ownership interest and sprout financial which is an arizona entity and his statutory in title meant to review its financials books and records number  number five which is for breach of contract he says the breach of contract claim is based on campbell locking shara out of financial all of those activities that give rise out of or relates to defendants form related activities there is no dispute that when there were discussions about merging kathrine that those discussions occurred in arizona and not in nevada if i may if i may continue so the district court properly concluded that campbell is extremely limited contacts with nevada did not give rise to shores claims as mentioned each of charice claims against campbell or focused upon the ownership and operation of this financial business in phoenix arizona and campbell denying shara and ownership interest and access in books to the books and records of the same campus declaration was campbell is declaration states in paragraph eleven to ninety five these conversations took place in phoenix arizona and over the phone while mr shara was in las vegas nevada client it's unclear what mr shara believes to be sizable we gave a current street example of that only one percent of the revenue for sprout came from nevada and again doubt was not