thank you your honor morning your honour's may please the court my name is mark i all i'm here on behalf of appellants in this action in poland spring for claims that are nevada state law defamation per se defamation business disparagement and torturous interference with prospective business advantage erred in concluding that it did not have specific jurisdiction over a pelleas and second whether the lower court erred in failing to consider whether this case should have been transferred to the district of washington rather than being dismissed upon concluding it did not have jurisdiction with respect to the issue of specific jurisdiction the relevant standard is laid out in data disc it's a three prong standard the first prong is that the nonresident must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the former resident there of were performed some act by which he purposefully availed himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the form to the claim mr arise out of a relate to the defendant's formulated activities and three the exercise of jurisdiction must be  so before this hearing the panel asked the parties to consider the car international case and its implications on this matter we've done so we think the carter national while distinguishable on the issue of reasonableness nevertheless sets out three principles that are helpful to our discussion today the first principle and i'm quoting is that the commission of an intentional tort in a state is a purposeful act that will satisfy the first two requirements under data disk the second principle and quoting again is that a torturous act standing alone can satisfy all three requirements under data disk if the act is aimed at a resident of the state or has effects in the state and the third principle is that even if the inform intentional toward did not harm a former resident or did not have effects in the form jurisdiction may still be proper under data disk if it would be reasonable your honors we've met the first two prongs of data disk here under the car international framework we've the district court is correct that we did not link the nevada defamation to any particular last proffer of any particular last transaction but the law recognizes that defamation itself gives rise to legally cognizable damages it is the violation of the plaintiff's rights to not defamed that gives rise to legally cognize with damages whether it's ultimately proved to be worth the damages in the form one hundred million dollars or nominal damages simply to correct the record that the defamation was a false statement about their business so we were allege harm in the market and the form of that harm is yet now i understand that i mean that there's always a reputational harm when it comes to the sort of the fabric to a statement in the business context the district court though identified something much more specific than that is as to whether the complaint itself has articulated that the unity of harm such that the lawsuit should be litigated in the verses elsewhere washington for example defendants home state so that's why i was asking you to focus on the harm that's articulate it whether by inference for by express representation in the complaint itself and if it's not there whether this is  pelleas were discussing appellants with these third party shots over and collect these third parties were considering retaining a palin services these third parties were also participants in the market by participating at a nevada trade show for that market by defaming appellants in the course of those conversations the complaint shows that participants in the nevada aviation market think less of turning back to the car international issues in the third prong of data disc for the reasons that we just discussed we think we have a ledge harm in the in the form affects in the form and under the car national that can be sufficient to satisfy the th ird requirement under data disk and on that basis we would have we would have met all three prongs but even beyond that the third prong can also be met using the reasonableness factors that this court typically applies a seven factor test with which miller and going through those factors it is of course supposed burden to show that it would be unreasonable for jurisdiction to be exerted by nevada in this instance we don't think they've met that burden reasonableness factors so here with respect to the extent of purposeful jurisdiction the allegation is so that respondents voluntarily decided to go to this trade show in nevada and they went there for the purposes of developing their own commercial statute with respect to the burden on defendant your honor opposed papers essentially amount to the notion that they perceive a significant burden from having to travel from washington involved to appear for hearings really to get this case from time to time we do not s think that that rises to a sort of unique harm that rises to the constitutional level these folks have said in their declaration that they travel a lot worldwide to go to different trade shows all the time so we don't perceive that as a significant burden  with respect to the other factor is your honour's we think about has a strong interest in this dispute the ninth circuit repeatedly has explained that a state has a special interest in exercising jurisdiction over those who've committed tortious acts within the state now we also think that nevada represents a reasonable place for this dispute to be resolved where the witnesses and the facts are in different locations and this is in some ways a midpoint between those people on that point that's actually probably more convenient to the police and is to appellants being that were located in bermuda in switzerland good morning may it please the court my name is angelo cho and i represent the police era law group and john schmidt we do not believe the district court erred when it dismissed plaintiff's case for lack of personal jurisdiction it would not be fair to require the defendants my clients to defend themselves in nevada where they are strangers additionally at this time we do not believe it would be in the best interest of justice to transfer this case rather than dismissing it because at this point  it looks at both purposeful direction test and the purposeful of element test and the purposeful direction test was important because in that case the plaintiff asserted that the kuwaiti companies had an intentional act in california with harmful effects in california when they made false statements to the california company that's the same that's basically the same allegation that's made here is that my client from washington went to nevada and made a defamatory statement an intentional act and there's no real allegation about harmful effects but at least in the car we have some instruction and car they rejected the idea that the effects were actually in california in the car the court said although there were fraudulent statements made to the california company those statements were actually aimed at the plaintiff who was a nonresident so i believe that they rejected that purposeful direction an sis but they did go into the purposeful of bailment test which because the plaintiff alleged that the california company rely on those false statements that the court could thereafter  feel comfortable in finding that the first two prongs of the purposeful of element test remit in our case there is no allegation that the witnesses in the nevada ever lied or ever believed any of the alleged false torts and there are no allegations about that the clients or the the witnesses in nevada actually believe anything that my client stated i think that could be a defense but it's not something they need plead ok so if if the court believes that there that the first two prongs of the purposeful of ailment tests were met i believe that we have met our burden to show that have is really the complaint right and your client was in that it's and kind of trade show and it's alleged that they go there regularly for these trade shows right that's correct that's an allegation of the complaint right so ninth circuit you have to look at the actual facts in this case and although it's pled that my clients regularly go to nevada to seek marketing activities to see clients that's not what happened in this case they were basically bai to say to give their opinions about the plaintiff there what they did they did they did the plaintiff's complaint talks about how the same witnesses were first approaching my client from from washington and that when they went to nevada they said don't you remember what you said in the isle of man this is what you said about the plaintiffs they answer a question very well states of air in the car the court noted that because the harmful acts were aimed at the nonresident the plaintiff that they extend of the energy action was negligible and that's what we have here the second issue is the burden on the defendant and yes you know kuwait to california is probably a lot farther than washington that nevada so we can see that the third factor is the extent of the conflict with the sovereignty of the defendant state now as we know from the complaint that plaintiff alleges that my client said that if any broker takes part in back to back transactions that that could be unlawful in a new under washington law and so i as we go through the case we first see that there may be conflicts in the different interpretations of how you perceive washington law if if it goes back to nevada there might be initial conflict there the fourth and at the end of the day i don't i really don't see it as an pick or the court said that the former state has no interest in policing activities of nine california license banks similarly nevada has no interest in policing the activities of non licensed attorneys in nevada i think the most the most compelling factor is that efficient judicial resolution of the controversy in the car the court looked at were discovery was going to take place and current the court noted that discovery would take place in everyone's place a location in this case no one is from the state of nevada if there's depositions it will be in whatever state they are from not even the subpoena powers can bring forward those witnesses that are alleged in the complaint so i'd like to go to the last factor which is the alternative form in this case there is an alternative form and that's washington for the above reasons we believe that the court should affirm the dismissal based on just a couple of brief points in response with respect to the issues of purposeful injection in the forms interest i think in the case of in the case of the card the contact with california there was incidental in the sense that chase bank which is the bank that the defendant had contacted was chosen by the plaintiffs so in other words the decision to go to california in order to try to draw on the letter of credit was just a function of the plaintiff's decision to appoint chase as its age in that instance not the case here in this instance that pelleas saw a commercial opportunity to go to an about a trade show to build their business decided to go to nevada to participate in that market purposefully injected themselves in that market the second point with respect to the forms interest in this suit the nevada supreme court has addressed this issue very clearly it states that nevada law should start this is the fruit the body decision that we cited in our brief nevada law should afford some protection to to the out of state residents which nevada hosts at trade shows in order to boost nevada business as petitioners argue the state has an interest in protecting its visitors from commercial  point on that that factor is only relevant where the other factors have shown that jurisdiction is unreasonable that's a principle set up in the sinatra the national enquirer decision so i don't think we even get to that factor here but if