for time i'll try to help you but you're responsible for that ok thank you and may please the court the issue before the court is with respect to the specific personal jurisdiction of the pelly blue cross blue shield of minnesota there's two ways in which it's evident that blue cross blue shield minnesota is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in california one is the provision of insurance in california or insurance related services and the nd is the phone calls which were the direct and only basis for the ok the health or every contact that the health care providers had with blue cross blue shield of minnesota it's a long look let's just call blue cross for the moment were initiated by the health care providers were they not they were and they were initiated by the health providers in each case the health care provider called blue cross and said well you cover this patient it was more extensive than that but you but i mean that was the purpose of the call correct them doesn't the case law rather clear that when the party seeking to invoke personal jurisdiction institutes the contact with it out of state and duty that doesn't count as purposeful of the element no your honor i mean there's  communications i didn't mr marquez provide a service there after or do something there after everything was out of the state of california in this case it's hard for me to see how blue cross purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in california when you called them and said will you cover these patients and they their answer yes or no depending on what factual well this is an out and so i think that's very important and so there is this is an out of network doctor these are out of network if but that's the context directly late led to the procedure being provided that's the key point is it's a very it's a very binary thing let's talk about rob for a nd you've cited it here today you cited quite a lot in your brief  this court come into that roth number one was a quote very close call if you're in the alleged contract there was not more substantial than the commitments allegedly made by blue cross here and let me add one more cent to that question for you in iraq the movie would be filmed in california here payment would be made for surgery performed in california one dollar of the the film is not going to be filmed in california it's explicitly states in the i mean in the background of the case it's basically states that when one of the conditions that mr mark has laid out was that the film would absolutely not be provided and done in california it was going to be done by a latin filmmaker and it was going to mean how do you reconcile the supreme court's decision in bristol myers with your argument i guess that because blue cross minnesota insures hundreds of people in california there are enough contacts with california it seems like the court was pretty clear so in that case that the defense general connections with the form aren't aren't enough and so i guess more specifically don't we have to focus only on the context with the form that have a connection to the controversy agreed on and that was the confusion i think in include cross blue shield of minnesota's answering brief is in there reference to is there misunderstanding of what specific jurisdiction means a specific jurisdiction has two relevant to this case well there's you're not making a claim on behalf of the insureds you're making a claim on behalf of the providers if there were no insurance if their patient did not have an insurance card which had an emblem which has blue cross blue shield of if these and you know it doesn't really matter where the insureds lived for purposes of this they came to you for services yes or it if it's that look there's two forms a specific jurisdiction that's i think that's very important is that to not be confused to say well specific jurisdiction just has to be the single occasion or episode and suit it has to be a certain seal occasion or specific act that's more the calls that's more that we're talking about the provision of insurance that's what they do here in california they provide jurisdiction which is that the constantini was in systematic activity which they absolutely do have here in california relating to insurance related services whether that be claims administrative services or whether it be actual pro the claims in this case based on one phone call each claim is based off of what we only have i mean there may be more other more phone calls and there's also no i'm in no mood to there's a record so tell me what's in the record there are in there are there are late edition history it's not a fast talking sorry i was trying to your client calls blue cross blue shield and says we'll cover the service yesterday and there's a dispute about whether they said yes or no we can worry about it later are there any subsequent calls or communications other than that there are other letters and communications yes sent from you to them from them to us and vice versa yes but those are the subsequent ones about the dispute that later occurs or are they about the initial claim that the submission of the bill there may be right so i understand it may be lots of letters once you start fighting about whether they should cover it my question is their contacts that you say led you to perform these service things typically with relation to the call we're lation to the initial district court cases has never been decided in the th circuit but in every district court case that's addressed this promissory estoppel oral contract cause of action they've all found they've all found that that would rise to the level of  of a of a promise me i know you're out of time but i'm going to extend it just because i have a question here that i'd like for you today to answer and as i understand the nature of your claim under the california unfair competition  in hon by the rd party beneficiary of the insurance policy and the th circuit value that claim under a purposeful of element theory so i'm trying to figure out why should tort case control our car accident in a different state and then the patient and then the insured moved to california so nothing actually happened in california and just the patient is the insured move to california whereas in our case everything occurs in california all the medical services for four performed in california so that's how patient insurance contracts for purposes of the merits that case because you said it's very different guess what i'm drawing on the similarity is ensure had virtually no presence in california where the plane resides but it did mail her  insurance benefits in the state even though the letter mailed it to the state does not subject the defendant to the state's jurisdiction so i guess i'm just trying to figure out i think the key and your honor and it's the same thing it's the same principle with it's the main principle with respect to the calls the key inquiry in all of these cases is where the actual events occur so the denial letter is with respect to an accident that occurred in a different state brazil or mexico city but doesn't the court say the future consequences of the contract would be that activity the editing or the editing of that you are currently editing of the film would have occurred in california in your case other than you mailing a check now mailing medical procedure on or you were not you're not what havoc i'm asking a separate question what would they have done in california other than mail a check to you at a location with mr mark has it done in california other than woman in the store has it been in california a that the plaintiffs had in california and the main teaching of wall them versus fiore is that specific jurisdiction depends upon the relationship of the defendant the form state and the litigation so so it's right no longer good law in your view i don't think it is i don't think so much good law just for purposes it's gosh ok if it's good law for purposes of our discussion does it control can you  it there were activities that were there after the under the facts of rauf after the entry the contract there was going to be continued actions of a large  nature by the defendant afterwards that's not the case here the only act of done after the alleged contract and we'll get to that is a single medical service it was not systemic or or continuous with respect to the acts that are relevant to what the litigation was supposed to do blue cross in this case reporting according to the purported contract was pay the providers for the services correct that's what they want us to do that's right they say that you agreed to pay for the services what else would you have done in california if this contract existed nothing i take it you were going to come to california to pay that way if we weren't com client is that the kind of contact that would give rise to specific years diction i mean it's funny to think that mailing a check making a payment is an act of veiling of the jurisdiction it's the complaint in minnesota it's not made in california so all of the wrongful conduct that's alleged would have occurred in minnesota not in california let me ask you if if based on the transcripts of the calls that were made  we find that blue cross blue shield of minnesota promised lapeer that it would pay for the medical costs is there specific to your station there might be your honor right if if in the phone call even if initiated from california to minnesota if during the content of that call minnesota reached back out and said look here please we want you to provide this service for the patient ok that could be considered a reaching out to the forum but it's not that's not what happened but it's not what they claim happened ah that's what they plead but that's not actually what's in the content of the phone calls as judge he found it's actually not disputed when you look at the content of the phone cause there was no promise to pay there was no request that the providers actually perform the services and because there was no reaching out by blue cross in the phone call look across the phone call was purely passive it was responding to questions and that was it you know read the transcripts of the calls between them here because i'm still not sure that that this was not a promise to pay here and stand there's a disclaimer  that lapeer employees heard prior to the calls but you also don't think dispute that blue cross blue shield told look here over the phone that no pre authorization was required for seven of the eight cover the medical costs i guess i'm trying to figure out how is that not a promise to pay well st part or authorization is not itself a promise to pay hey par authorization isn't that deals with whether something is medically necessary or not and it sure doesn't require that they authorize every procedure before a doctor does it doctors sometimes and most of the time actually almost all the time they make their own decision about whether it's medically necessary when blue cross says no prior authorization is needed is just saying it's for the provider to make the decision about medical necessity it is not making a promise to pay it is just saying it's not me saying we are not deciding medical necessity in advance and so i rely on a pre authorization on a definition on our reasonable understanding of realtors issue because i think most people understand if you're gotten pre authorization that broadly plaintive said that he wanted to produce expert evidence to show that pre authorization has some special meaning he never actually presented that evidence if he were to believe that the statement that pre authorization is not needed is a promise to pay he should have presented evidence and he never did so if i can just go outside the record for a moment in the patient contracts there is language that defines what is prior authorization there's also a footnote that we put into our brief with a definition from c m s and there even in the governmental definition it says pre authorization is not a promise to pay they d they understood to be a promise to pay or i don't believe they allege that so that's not alleged in the complaint is that is that an implicit reading of their complaint that they entered into a contract with you i don't think so the way i read their complaint was that blue cross asked them to perform the service and yeah it's not just us that just isn't in there i don't think there's any evidence in these phone calls that they asked them to go ahead and do the surgery exactly but the but i think one could read the complaint broadly as saying you told us if we did the surgery would you would pay for it it but it's not it's not the complaint that matters right it's not the pleading that matters be crosswise to conclude you want your factual right blue cross presented contrary evidence what you can do want to point b to motion and that evidence contradicts the pleading judge he found and there's actually not a dispute that the content of the actual phone calls does not contain a promise to pay if you did though your view is that there would be personal jurisdiction depends upon how it's worded right right so i thought i thought you said look you know if there were a promise to pay let's just we promise to pay that's the wording so you don't get to make up other wording would there be personal jurisdiction probably not because there's still the issue of pay how much and there's not necessary promises to that talk it with let's assume we minnesota and later moved to california did this patient receive medical services or in california when he or she was a california resident was still insured by blue cost to shield so  time that she received services from the pier she was insured by blue cross so she did receive medical services in california certainly have lived here yes and she was a california where a resident and still insured by because she had to obtain insurance while the minnesota resident after she obtained the insurance she moved to california under minnesota law blue cross minnesota was required to continue that contract to renew it so why isn't that enough to come for specific sure spanish jurisdiction especially it seems like this is very similar to the fact in her there's no voluntary contact by blue cross with respect to that patient because blue cross didn't have a choice as to whether to insure her or you did pay on that patient an out of network so so the question was were we required to ensure her nightstand right and so i retired figure out what your conduct what your voluntary conduct was and well because we were required to ensure her we were going required to apply the terms of the health insurance contract  you agreed instead to pay the and network fee that's not what the transcript and i understand but that's what they're say so my question is ab really in the end your argument must rest on the fact that simply the contract that they claim was formed really wasn't formed because you produced evidence that it wasn't for that that is one part of our argument absolutely so is to answer judgment to go back to judge mcgee as question let's i would say there's not because i was a contract relationship purely in minnesota you know when we were forced by minnesota to renew a policy in california when we don't want to be in california i'm not really sure what the rules are going to be so at the end when you're resting on these transcripts as to the phone calls yes right that's one of the bases of of plaintiff's claim for jurisdiction thank you very much for the reason stated right there's no connection between the defendant the foreman the litigation we asked the court or you well over time but i'll give you one minute i'll be very brief i think it's i think just sort of because the court was pointed in terms of where was going with respect to the phone calls the court was that they asked  usual and customary is a payment rate that's used throughout the industry it's used by united health care it's used by blue cross of california it's used by cigna it's used by health net they all use that term of art you see are our customer and reasonable if there's a data source which all the industry uses called fair health that's the information that my client will not well that's that information the medical vital appear obtained they got all that information they knew what the payment rate was and that's why they went to perform the procedure that's a promise that's an assurance and they were reviewing your position is that your current understood and we have the transcript so we can read to your client's understood to transcripts to be a promise to pay when they want to show us an assurance yes yes and i think that all inferences are drawn in their mr stieglitz and mr mr freesheet your presentations the case of health care ally management of california versus blue cross blue shield of minnesota