client had brought discrimination claims against defendants and essentially it's our position that the defendants have been utilizing their these corporate entities as assured for liability to lie for liability for their discriminatory the parties could explore whether or not there would be sufficient evidence in support of the allegations and essentially what we have here is we have three guards in the m e global we have a massive disagreement amongst the parties as to what the facts and parents and subsidiaries there's enough overlap that you don't have to worry about the corporate form i mean how do we think about this i mean i think it's i think it's points being made on both aspect because they are kind of playing a game here they are creating shell companies  for example the testimony about the i mean global brazil piercing the corporate veil is pretty tough burden so is that is that a burden you need to clear to win here but i think i think the under the weather p the corporate veil the alter ego status i mean all those points that we've pointed out to the court i mean obviously there's these entities have a certain amount of preferential status i mean that's the status that even by law but we believe that the evidence that exists here overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that any global is for all practical purposes one entity so you can you argue that at the district court improperly took into consideration certain facts from  testimony was from my client is that all these entities fall under one umbrella of any global in the sense that they're all run by the common management they are another words  apologist torture that person's name was basically oversaw the entire network of companies my client was working amongst these various companies and the idea that there were so much for example brazil is she the global brazil soon where she sued first there was some testimony there's some there was some litigation of some sort i don't know the details of that your honor in the middle east i don't know the nature of it to be honest i think it's part of the record as to what it was but i don't recall i mean it was a summary thing like that it was involving some other legal matter i thought it was involving your terminations him a half it may have been under some local rule laws or purview of the united states of the united states in the state of michigan and so if if you're employed by amazon china and you get fired you can sue in the united states if the facts are as they are in this case spurs you have agreed have a company that is has connections with is run by and operated by a human american company but you agree that all these major american corporations have international americas was in michigan fact based they shared the same office spaces dow chemical so it's there are certainly that was the issue with regards any goals personal jurisdiction with regards to dow chemical on the other hand the issue of document calls was not dow chemical is the employer name was he was a named party so it's hard to find among the caption but anyway he was he was employed by dow chemical he received performance evaluation by a company chemical his predecessor was was employed by dow chemical was fired and removed from  y global by dow chemical that was the testimony from my client who was a member of management under mr ross tenure and she was in a position to know what happened this is not some low level  dow chemical over to seeing the company in fact she goes on to say that i mean bill couldn't exist without dow chemical i mean global when you look at the testimony from my client so first it's a peeper it looks like a huge international corporation but has a very few number of employees eat their evidence that anyone from dow chemical refute the people that supervised your client in other words give employment reviews is there anything in the record that shows that i believe there some testimony from dow chemical was supervising or reviewing her supervisors remember there were some testimony her to the position i don't remember if that if she comes out all right says dow chemical that says that evaluations if that's what itself and all that it becomes clear that is at least of dispute the existence of the motion for summary judgment is not a trial or a bench trial or jury trial this is the question the court was supposed to take evidence i've seen the light most favorable to the nonmoving party which  was some issue about she had that could be up to two years of two years back pay if i remember something along those lines she got that because of the lack of notice not because of any wrongdoing on that could really be what it was i don't  concerns the authority of a u s district court to entertain a claim brought by a dubai resident against her dubai corporate employer based on alleged injuries and events occurring entirely in dubai and about which she has already sued that employer in dubai and has received in excess of six figures which as the roof where is the line for extending personal not the same address with the dow chemical company i can tell you it's thirty three twenty three ridge croft and mr nelson can tell you dallas address but in any event the line is that the first presumption is that corporations are separate entities and do not answer for each other and we agree on that we both stated that rule and the second thing we also agree on is that it is only in very limited demanding circumstances that you can disregard that separation and i ask you the same question just ask your opponent which is due to doubt does dow chemical or america or a conduit to any global international f c e he was evaluated by marcus will be of doubt india even as an emmy global international employee is names on the evaluation marcus will be was instrumentalities and the one way first way to do that the gate keeper and that is that they're in the nature of a parent in a sub and that is not present here at the elephant in the room of course is that there was never were two in over two years down the road on this case and we are here on the basis of a single phrase in paragraph three of the complaint that says and the global international f c e does business as and the global america there's not a single material element alleged of alter ego status anywhere there's not been any attempt to amend that complaint right so twelve briefs later hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars later were here on the basis of that single alligator discovery that was conducted was a conducted in connection with the summary judgment motion and hours are conducted in connection with the motion to dismiss for lack of per personal jurisdiction with respect it was permitted and as regards both i have real concerns and i'll tell you i don't think it was conducted as regards the personal jurisdiction issue but you know what i'm asking you know the words you normally the judge would give someone an opportunity to find out what's going on and you're saying they didn't conduct discovery as to this issue as opposed to the claim against down let me tell you we got eleven in iraq to tory's that apply to us that we answer we got twelve requests for admissions which we denied seventeen document requests which we provided and the global americas is in counsel's backyard is subject to subpoena and that's the entity they're saying is the alter ego and i'll tell you we don't you know what the court found we don't necessarily disagree with there is a management team it is appointed by the ultimate parent i mean global b v now in terms of that management team that that management team did all major direction setting well that doesn't sound like day to day right that that management team handled escalations when the individual and she called them legal entities at separate locations they had admissions in the records from plain not from us also from us that they would handle escalations when the individual local entities could not resolve their problems under the master services agreement with tao they were escalated up to this management team and and resolution was stall sought telling is plaintiff's testimony cited in in our brief that she was not a member of the management team she says i was on the website at one point saying that i was but i never actually attended a single meeting i might have seen some agendas on somebody's desk about it i do not know of a single decision they made so i'm going to go back to this ask you the fact that these two compan to companies are in different countries that in and of itself doesn't foreclose a finding of personal jurisdiction not there are factors that that one could look at and i mean you could find personal jurisdiction where they're in different different countries to correct it think you could i know you're saying that's the case here well i'm saying more than that though i think it is more difficult here because although these companies are in the business of selling glycol and manufacturing in some cases like all not not my client my client didn't manufacture like all so it's hard to see how it could  be the alter ego up for instance canada where they did manufacture it and where in the global americas does now manufacture it in texas you can keep going but you're using mr nelson's time if you want  just let me finish my point if if thank you they are in that enterprise they are in that industry but my kind can't sell here in any local americas cannot sell in asia so in that respect they're not thank you for your time i submit that this case can be decided precisely what was not shown and that is the the focus of the district court's order which we ask you  not exercise under control over her employment therefore the district court did not or any of her supervisors dow did not so the the if you look at the the corporation flow chart that we have the early on is an employee of dow to calm me who is six hundred two a partially owned subsidiary twelve levels removed from that if at least one of her supervisors ha reporting duty is responsibility is to somebody and tao that leadership at a finger level that's not enough to get her there oh i yes absolutely my point is actually first of all that he he wasn't employed by i doubt he was employed by you but you just said he was employed by them he was employed by a wholly owned dow subsidiary called the congo ok dow chemical oversees management company  but even if that were the case even as the district court assumed even if you were to assume that somehow he had some sort of duties to dow such that dow was was his actual employer there is no evidence in this r that somehow through that relationship dow exercise control over miss and large workplace in fact all of the testimony with regard to mr rahman shomron is that he owed one hundred percent of his duties to any global f c but he exercised his duties in that way and the district court even reached the conclusion on in its in its analysis that dow didn't even have any knowledge of the challenge conduct that was occurring here there is absolutely no evidence that ties dow chemical company to what happened in dubai with regard to mr is there any way as a practical matter this woman can invoke title seven is there any entity that she can invoke title seven against i mean i got the point that she's used to by law gotten something and one could make the argument enough is enough let's say that's not right  how would she go about doing that who could she sue and how would you do this if she wants to be protected by title seven which but you say for sake of argument is a lot better than the divine law when it comes to protecting our i'm not aware of any way in this particular case where she would be able to to invoke title seven that's because she can't get jurisdiction over the proper defendant or because the property found it would be covered by title seven because the proper distance offended her actual employer because while the reason is congress limited title seven to employers her employer is any global f c who has conducted all of its which is a divine entity conducted all of its operations in dubai and all the conduct occurred in dubai consequently it is not an employer subject title seven though an american that goes to work abroad you just kind of stuck if that's the way it works i'm not accusing you of anything i'm just trying to figure out well certainly she gets the advantages of dubai law and to the extent that there are advantages that she wishes she had from from us law it's she just doesn't have access to them in the same way that if she had gone to work for an entity that has a foreign entity that has no connection to any u s anstey there would be no way for her to invoke any sort of that at access to u s law based soley on the fact that there might be a shareholder immediate or interact in that company who happens to be a u s citizen that wouldn't be sufficient in nor is it sufficient here and i would suggest that that is the effect of bestfoods decision from the supreme court so to to try to directly answer your question judge sutton the fact the matter is having to essentially had a reason of her germination that she had adequate notice of just the part you asked about the evaluations there available at ph i d s fourteen sixty four through fourteen seventy one in the record very briefly then turning to a list of course further questions about the now you know very briefly with regard to the discovery i would submit to this court that the issue with regard to the written discovery has been forfeited or waived whatever the the proper term is for failure to was of course that the global managers of course as the test was a dollar dollar please i run the shop as being one of them the managers do the evaluations of the employees so it's downplayed it's doing the evaluations of the employees including my client whatever's in your brief will rely on and her testimony is also part of the it's a very short deposition and she summary especially if you look at from twelve fifty nine onwards in particular there's a great deal of discussion about the interplay between dow chemical and and and in fact are intertwined with any global and opinion if i remember correctly he converted everything over to a fifty six that you you were you often have discovery in connection with jurisdictional motions it sounds like you got it and counsel goble just said you properly supported twelve b two motion and opposition the court has three procedural charges and it goes through what he can do so he clearly understood what he was still well and again it was never the issue dispute what things you didn't hear anything about at all discretion review and i think the appeal that yes we did your honor we feel that we feel to the fact that there was that we were not allowed permitted to take his deposition and the fact of the matter is that there is he was the he was a he was the c e o of the