reversed for three reasons st the district court failed to consider that under rule four k two and the supreme court's holding in burnham that service of process on mr dealt with things conclusively satisfy due process and conferred personal jurisdiction because mr dallas it was personally served with process one voluntarily in the united states senate in the district court improperly analyzed mr dallas and purposely directed contact under the minimum contact analysis and rd the district court abused its discretion by improperly applying the transfer statute and failing to transfer the case to the middle district in the absence of personal jurisdiction in california i'd like to focus my time primarily on the st point that service of process on the rd thing conclusively satisfy due process and stablished personal jurisdiction federal rule of civil procedure case to provide for that for a claim arising under federal law service of a summons establishes personal jurisdiction over the person of any defendant so long as the exercise of and so ringback you know i am interrupt you for a moment you present a very interesting issue as far as i can tell from the st impression the district court cannot find that supports him with the circumstances in your why isn't his physical presence also sufficient to defeat a nd prong that is that he's not subject to the jurisdiction of any state you're arguing he was present in the united states and there are subject to the jurisdiction of florida state within the united states cases arising under federal law the court does not need to deal with state boundaries right so the district court in this case and we respectfully disagree with the district court's holding but the district court found that because the case was not filed in florida that when mr dallas sitting with her florida did not have personal jurisdiction that was the reason that the district court did not transfer to florida so if we're going to accept that logic as true then florida would not have personal and jurisdiction so therefore you need to look at four k two contacts with the united states and under big men because it arises under federal law we don't need to necessarily piecemeal fifty different state borders we're just looking at was he is a cli president in the united states and he was and so therefore service of process would confer jurisdiction anywhere in the united states and therefore k to i don't want to just briefly address your honor the point that you made about the copyright in the m c a statute not having a nationwide service of process section and that is true but i believe that congress also judgment when they drafted for k two which did give cases arising under would you agree with that i see my time is short if i may have thirty seconds to answer your honor's question cohort four k one i think you have to look at section c in the context of section eight which states that the requirement that the defendant be subject to the jurisdiction of a court in a state where a district court is located right so that's the difference between for q one and two if they're subject to jurisdiction in this state the minimum contact or some other way then for k one would apply and if they're not then for k two would apply and so we would argue that in this case mr dallas ing was not claiming to be subject to the court of jurisdiction d in any state the district court didn't find that and so therefore service of process in the united states would be the proper application and so all submit until my rebuttal all right so you have just every two minutes thank you and mr poorman simply not the type of contact with united states the rule forty two was intended to capture ms iseman judgment call i have a question for you do you continue to deny mr dallas saying could be sued  so he could have been sued your honor you could have been sued in florida had appellants chosen to proceed there so you agree that he can be ordered and that would be the proper opponents burden to show in the lower court the transfer would be the in the interest of justice and appellate made no effort to make that showing d and therefore that it can't be an abuse of discretion or could not have been an abuse of discretion for the district court can i transfer further than the only ground up and also it's not clear that as i mentioned it's not clear that florida at this point because appellant filed a lawsuit in california and declines to proceed in florida it's not clear that it's disjuncture that there is jurisdiction in florida and therefore the transfer of your appropriate on that ground florida lawsuit and then proceeding against him in florida i do have one question that i'm not clear on i'm right there as clearly as you can say do you concede that met that burden the most important part these are the focus of the personal district attorney kirby is the defendant contact with the forum and critical to that inquiry is whether or not the exercise of your stiction is forseeable in other words a defendant could reasonably foresee being hailed into court in that forum given that no court has exercised or key to jurisdiction based on present mr dallas and could not reasonably anticipated that his transition presence in florida would have rendered him subject to jurisdiction throughout the united states mr johnson also smits that it would be a strange outcome if mr dallas seeing a foreigner would be subject to just mention in every state based on his transient presence in florida in the united states a defendant who is trans and we present in florida cannot be sued everywhere on that basis also submit that the court was correct in declining to find a specific personal jurisdiction over mr dell at seeing both through the marines and that is conduct was not expressly corrected at california conduct is not suppressed we aimed at the united states because the alleged misconduct is the posting of videos with allegedly copyrighted images in the in but the and the posting was in canada by canadian citizens t because it arises under federal law it erotically could have been filed in any federal court you can't file a california state law lawsuit in florida but you can file a federal lawsuit in florida or california and i think that's critical because we're talking about the united states and not necessarily one particular state on the other thing but i would agree with them would you agree with mr foreman that is your you had opted to do so you could have summons so they actually mail it to you so there would have been enough time for us to get mail it would have been long gone and i think that's what the problem is with this right you know maybe it wasn't that's not it and you're making the process argument that doesn't really affect he because there are many ways around the system well but i think your honor the problem is what if he was unable to be served right what if he successfully invaded now we're stuck with a lot how would that and who knows where he's going to be how would that be different and unique and whether was on minimum contact he argued in our brief below and here in this court you know with the understanding that if you wasn't going to be served well at least we have minimum contact with california i understand the district court you know didn't agree with that  t but that was the idea right i mean we didn't want to just completely guess and hope that we could serve him in florida if we weren't going to be able to get him and i just will make one more thing mr we believe that jurisdiction exists and will certainly argue it and put forth evidence of the contact doesn't mean the district court would agree and maybe the district court is right or not conceding that they are that maybe the district court right and so if the district court is right that there is no minimum contacts sufficient in california to establish jurisdiction in california when you flip back to forty two of the alternative argument of well there's contact with the united states specifically his being personally served in the united states and i will add briefly that you know i know there's been some discussion of this is a case of st impression what will this rule do if we rule in favor of mr warner i actually don't think that this is a radical rule because if you look at how  typically applied which is that a defendant is served in their home country might not even have ever visited the united states and yet the court can through minimum contact find that personal jurisdiction and due process are satisfied in that instance i think all the more reason for someone who travels to the united states to do business here who's physically present to reasonably anticipated being hailed into a court in the united states and if he doesn't believe that california is the court you can say heck you can even say northern district of new york is right across the border from toronto if you wanted to but you haven't said any of those things  your your arguments this morning they were helpful also thank you for joining us in this experiment to see telephonic arguments well i hope you both agree in that you thought you were able to present your positions