it is not disputed that the parties relationship is governed by a contract that it be is to be interpreted construed in the governed by laws of mexico it's also not disputed that the contract also provides that any action suit or proceeding honor that being said that the decision made below was not made based on the laws of mexico it was based upon a single decision that was adopted by two courts in mexico in litigation between  honor that the i think this is answered by looking at route forty four point one which does exactly what you're saying your honor when it was passed the attack as articulated in animal science was to make the determination for a law the same as it would  the same as the court would determine the domestic law in that case it is specifically referred to i believe that if the law the highest court of the land is the one that you are to follow then that is what you are to follow and you would make the same determination does if there was a court in new mexico making a determination rather than all mexico you would look at that within the hierarchy of binding precedent within the domestics the domestic system if it was a court from a that is a superior court and it has name the specific judge that therefore it was invalid and couldn't be enforced and that argument was soundly rejected and the provision was  d i mean that's pretty darn close i understand your honor and i understand where you're coming from on that ultimately that would be almost would if we were sitting in diversity under here and that we can't ignore the decision of two mexican courts that have rejected the very argument you're making here that has interpreted the very article of mexico maw that you're relying on and saying it doesn't invalidate this provision how isn't that a decision of law from mexico isn't and it underlying underlying everything here is your you've got homer  you rely on and there's not a single one of those decisions that involved a citizen not of mexico they were decisions between two parties in mexico suing each other right i believe that's the case for why the court might view might a little differently under the circumstances and look at the obvious intent of the parties that the that your client would subject itself to suit in mexican courts you're saying those decisions are wrong but you really don't give us a lot to work with we have to take your word that those are trying to mexican decisions and if you then maybe we could help you but i don't see how i don't i don't see how i've got anything to work with to rule in your favor except to say you're a nice lookin smart guy so i guess you're probably right respond by getting to court decisions to the contrary that's pretty good rebutt doesn't appear that you presented any alternative arguments that the district court of used its discretion when considering the public interest factors so if we disagreed with you and said the modified version is appropriate please the court ron merriman appearing on behalf of console tories probably don't this case as you're well aware involves two sophisticated commercial entities that engage in international business transaction access to counsel plenty of resources and they entered into a contract that has what appears to be a fairly and unambiguous form selection clause that we will read several times in reviewing these briefs the concluding sentence and that causes of the parties here to submit to the raising arguments that i don't see any difference from what have been raised in the briefing and today the core argument was that under the civil code section one thousand and ninety three that in order for there to be a  consider any relevant material or source to to determine foreign law and so i think the analogy that judge murphy raised is a useful one because forty four point one is supposed to make the determination of foreign  close as possible to how you would determine why new mexico or pennsylvania or any other jurisdiction and so what would we do if you're sitting in diversity jurisdiction you're trying to figure out what the law in new mexico is i think  good analogy would be what if you had an uninhabited appellate court decision from mexico from new mexico on the very same two parties in a case that was later brought in federal court and the party in federal court was saying that some published decision is wrong based on these published decisions there probably are a lot i mean there are probably a rigger feltman issue i would imagine but the a lot of the cases that have been cited particularly  united states supreme court case the vitamin case those are all cases that and that don't involve facts like this where you actually have parties that were litigating in the form form that come back to united states y diction and try and say hey this decision back here is just wrong they just with on the law those cases all involve statements by foreign government officials ministry of agencies doing experts that are citing president from other cases that ha that seem to be similar and in that respect i don't think there's really a lot more that this or has to do then look at what mexican courts held and and apply that law those decisions are flexion of mexican law i mean let me interrupt for a minute i mean if we look at article and ninety three which frankly i didn't see a word for word translation of it in your materials but there is one feed them and designate with absolute precision the judge didn't know they said mitt i mean that that does sound might be in order to comply and make the these decisions are just wrong well you know you look at any material any relevant source right so certainly we should look at the plain language of that statute and i would just point out that the courts in mexico were looking at that statute and their reasoning was it complies with that statute because by excluding united states judges and designating exclusive jurisdiction in mexico it was in effect designating judges in mexico and that sufficed i think the precise language from the federal circuit court of mexico is that we don't need the sacramental phrase that they're waiving jurisdiction in the united states and designating a specific judge in mexico so  that and it's not as if these decisions are just rogue decisions if you look at the decisions that have been provided in two different places in the record one place is two hundred and twenty four volume once you twenty four through thirty four they are citing precedent from other courts in mexico that reach similar conclusions in similar circumstances now counsels correct that those decisions have not yet reached th e mandatory kind of super precedent status because they've been repeated by five courses as the impartial lot requires but there's that they're not making it up as they go along they have a basis for their decision and they're interpret the same language we have here the same claims under the same civil code and making a termination so it's hard to conceive of more persuasive evidence of what mexican law is then decisions from two mexican courts interpret our bar very contract with the civil code and and making a decision as between these two parties and what mexican law requires on this argument that the issues are distinct that the issue in the mexican court system is different from the issue that's being presented here and i think the the discussion i think kind of flesh that out so i won't belabor the point but it is true that of course this case i forcible under the civil code is a specific enough is the waiver clear enough as it passed muster and on that substantive issue the courts in mexico held that it is and so i think i think the real problem with that argument is if you look at the language of the form selection closet it applies to any action suit or proceeding related to any dispute claim or controversy that arises from disagreement so if there was going to be a holding that well yeah you could bring we my client could bring claims in mexico but his client can bring claims in utah there's no way to read that provision that would allow that if it's in force of the moment applies then all of a geisha has to take place contradictory conclusions in the declarations shouldn't bother us one with the between the the declarations of the dueling experts well yes c's expert was at school attorney in mexico and they're advocating on behalf of their clients and they reach diametrically opposed conclusions if you're trying to figure out what mexican law is looking at evidence submitted by counsel that has a dog in the fight versus decisions from independent courts that are looking at it and applying mexican law it seems that's much more persuasive authority of what mexican law is than an attorney who's advocating on behalf of the attorneys client so no i don't think we should be troubled that the experts disagreed with each other experts always disagree with each other but the benefit in this case is that we have independent courts that are telling us what mexican law is in this in this very same dispute on this very same question as the court of any other questions for me thank you townsell the don't recall of mr thomas used up all his time and you and recall in time to time you have to give us thirty eight seconds back actually