we have the enough import from you to have made the oral argument worthwhile at any rate with that we'll have the clerk called of the the case that is now going to be the points that you think you want to emphasize absolutely in this case land entertainment group is a corporation that incorporated in connecticut and the president and chief shareholder is  correct the company is incorporated in florida and has some business here in chicago as well at issue here is the trial court's order denying our motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction  interested in you having a good a more complete sense as to whether we're dealing with one unifying contract with some parts or whether we're dealing with individual contracts we're also interested in knowing that even if we're dealing with individual contract since they do involve similar transactions between the same artes whether that might not be enough at least to generate a contact now state of illinois constitution as the limits as the context limits to the point where at least just as grime in one of his opinions indicated that with those provisions we don't even need the other of some courts seem to be inclined to say that the of the constitutional limitations do not exceed those specific types of conduct enumerated but just as grammar makes a very clear statement that in effect once we have the constitutional limits there is really no necessity for any of the other contextual elements specified in that rule and that's bad and an act that arises out of that you're stiction if we're looking at the long arm statute which we are in this case general jurisdiction is not at issue but looking at the one who statute and whether it would bind illinois principles of jurisdiction to have  connecticut corporation in a floor when you're talking about specific jurisdiction as opposed to kill correct but let's i'm sorry but i think we should go first to the jurisdiction whether there was a waiver of the jurisdiction by the ball with  very beginning of this jurisdiction has been an issue that has never been raised other than the jurisdiction issue both with judge taylor and with the plaintiffs from this where is a waiver of whatever waiver there would have been i might subject matter jurisdiction which is not trial court judge taylor didn't take it as an issue neither did the defendant this is being raised for the first time here and we haven't waived that because the defendant himself filed the pro se motion but as of the telly they can raise wait it's whether or not this supports the judgment right and in this case our position is that it the initial motion that was filed was for lack of jurisdiction when that was filed that was not a general appearance that was not something that would give illinois jurisdiction then followed an alternative motion for form not convenience and as your honour's are aware generally those are filed at the same time for a judicial economy so that you don't go through an entire briefing schedule just one jurisdiction and then do the exact same thing just one more so in this case the person was a discovery that came much later on that came when the plaintiffs attempted to do what was tantamount to as objecting to the court's jurisdiction over a connecticut and a florida corporation so they came after that but it is very first location that only the very first of all motions filed was by the six nineteen point one asked to perform that such combined motions must take in order to preserve of the jurisdiction well under six nineteen it have to be jurisdiction washing it out and including the illinois law so that we could argue it in front of judge taylor and in this case jurisdiction from the very beginning in fact in one of the orders because we were so it we went through great lengths to preserve the jurisdiction in one of the orders on order the judge even stated that any further to a one al discussions in terms of discovery would not wait any of the jurisdiction argument that we have consistently and making in fact when we did do depositions part of the objection w s that it didn't address jurisdiction what about the form selection clauses and views contracts wouldn't those form selection clauses or manically extend jurisdiction and persona as well as six six variables to look at when we're looking at the form selection wise and just to point out in the contracts that are attached the form selection causes all for individual contracts that are outside of illinois or washington virginia in connecticut you are you saying there were no written contracts in which forum selection was designated in illinois where the only thing that overall in this whole series though there were form selection i'd like to buy mine clarifying the form selection situation was there a form selection clause in each of the agreements that are now being litigated interpret the case law on the subject that you can't simply provide for a choice a forum for jurisdiction purposes independently of any other considerations as my last contract position of our supreme court and our intermediate courts as well that to discourage a party from simply choosing the state based on where he's going to get the better deal out of the concrete contractual so well let me just take a step back and just to be perfectly clear our position as series is a completely manufactured term it is not and now that it will start with forget about the series but that makes as saying on the other hand the at there is money owed and that this was some series of agreements some or all series of agreements that had subsequently written contracts for some of the events but not the others now my question to you is this was there an evidentiary hearing in this case or not or did the court simply review what what had been the  contracts that are according to your perspective under litigation under dispute at this point and also the choice of law now when you talk earlier about i'm looking to you to your opponent for it the contracts that are attached i don't have that for this litigation they don't have that and just to also be very clear there is no dispute both the plaintiff and the defendant both agree that when the concert in two unnecessary to the fact those contracts which you can see are now under dispute and would you agree with the time then the the proper form state cheyenne concert in connecticut the second attachment exhibit b is just the first two pages of the same code promotion agreement the third one is a quick promotion agreement for daddy yankee concert in fairfax virginia which they call that that the courts look at one is the residency of the plaintiff or the defendant i would respectfully disagree with you that this think that the case law says it's there is a sufficient concentration of override any other of omitted of the leader contacts or otherwise sort of this contract is for them he can sign which also happens to be on tribal ground so there are other you know in the left lane well it is that might be a form not convenience issue but again even that's overridden consensual well because the location of the parties and the witnesses becomes the seminal issue when we had the depositions for the two or one out  the plaintiffs asked numerous questions regarding witnesses all those witnesses twenty four of them are in connecticut four of them are in new york and several of them are in florida what happened in illinois by contract people can name their own volition if they agree to it so even if it turns out to be inconvenient if there is a consensual agreement there and it is for a legitimate legal a of four volt you know which is selling on the market for forty as long as your had thought as long as no one is twisting your arm nobody has a gun to your you can enter into any contr and the courts will not reject jurisdiction simply because of it that the court disagrees with the fairness of the contract without having ever say that they or lee reed to do to resolve their illinois just people in illinois no there is no back event no records or is there any testimony from any of the parties that they in the state of illinois that so we're that's we're not going up we're not we're not obligated to to agree with every x pression hyperbolic or otherwise of the profits and losses expenditures they're using that to court to say that because there were debits and credits in their own accounting department that somehow equals a series of contracts which is absolutely not true because of a contract it's contradicted by your you know contract was the result of money being old in the old gray and football says there was never any money owed there was no contract that wasn't performed that resulted in deposition as you look through the records admits that at the end of the concert in chicago it was seventy thousand dollars that was owed to mr bob so he actually admits that neither of the the word series you're assuming that for the word series to have been a kind of significant step in establishing minimal count so it has to be a comprehensive agreement that can be enforced as a now supposing it's not enforceable as a brother represents nevertheless a step in the negotiation of the the case law says that negotiations alone is generally not enough to provide a sufficient minimal count correct but supposing those so in a situation if the parties were married and actually took that affirmative staff and their green mess with let's not use nary a to literally hear it there could be a conceivable situation where that would apply here this that doesn't apply because when they met they met in connecticut to negotiate the mohegan sun concert when they met that was just a negotiation for sometime in the future doing business then there was a lapse of time there's different ways in the entertainment industry where these how these concerts can play out one is for the koshare of them their cup promoters other producers and purchasers one is where one produces it and the other simply provides the entertainment we have two of those here pradelle simply provided the entertainment and that was the testimony that was supported by their own rights and at the end of that everyone was paid out all the contractors were paid out including mr obama who received who was owed seventy thousand dollars not if you fast forward and then the dead yankee in connecticut for the dead yankee one in connecticut what they did was they decided they were going to share the proceeds so they share the profits in the losses and that's why they signed the co promotion agreement where they're listed as producer and purchaser and specific items are itemized in the contract the interglacial was also states that each contract a separate what the point of this trying to do is they're trying to lump that by creating this term series which doesn't exist i've looked at informal arrangement that the parties under took well the negotiations that they initially had were general discussions it wasn't even negotiation per se once they started to solidify it they started writing the co promotion agreements are all the concert thing here to deal with some of the test is whether the parties die engage in any transaction that would give them a heightened expectation of being hailed into the courts with the forms certainly and in this case we have mr the bone who has only been here once has never been back since two thousand and seven does not do marketing here and to go court does there need to be some kind of money involved some kind of performance of the contract or the cause of the action that sure well there does need to be some cause of action that arises out of illinois and they actually mean waiting for that argue that that since there were multiple concerts that that this lawsuit arose out of the performance of a contract in illinois you could have if the accounts were paid in full and stated that he wasn't mr bone was owed money so yes it would anger have an effect that at least according to mr football there was no money ever old from the illinois house which what what is was there ever written agreement for illinois or no there was no written agreement the agreement was that mr cardenas who who was going to he was the owner of the concert he requested that mr bunker provide the entertainment and that was the end of it he provided omar as the entertainment at the u i c pavillion and that was the extent of it mr capone wasn't the producer he wasn't on any of the documents ok what about the later illinois there were two other illinois now only one is the issue here so i understand and that's that's there was the first one right know that the third one there were two other ones in two thousand and were three concert concerts in illinois and no money according to mr bone has ever been the subject of debate regarding anything the currently still my correct were the other two all contracts as well they were so there's no with document for what's really claiming or at least the bone is saying no money is owed for anything that ever took place in illinois right now the question is if you have three cancers in illinois does that give the court jurisdiction  illinois if you dispute it or rice then conceivably yes but here we don't have that the there were two thousand and six concerts and the two thousand and seven the two in two thousand and six they were done they were paid or not it is ok so then again we're going back to this thing about the series right mr hart venus says that they had a running tab and that was their agreement mr paul says that there was never a penny owed for anything in illinois so i'm going to ask that we had a running tally and that we were throwing this all one big pot and that money was all and that's how you get to illinois right he also says no money was ever wrote and in illinois that it had t he had with illinois has nothing to do with the loss correct and each contract each concert they did was supper on its own counsel if i might interrupt you for a moment how much time do you think you'll need come out of this district to talk about jurisdiction if we're looking at the long arm statute it has to be both minimum context and that it arose out of it and the issue is was there any dispute following the two thousand and seven the only issue at the concert here in illinois there was mr cardenas in his deposition and i read you to look at it agreed his own chief financial officer shows that there was money owed to the defendants not that the defendant had a dispute with him now he's trying to blend what is essentially a county principle debits and credits that's accounting that's not the legal premise for jurisdiction or is there any case to support that he's trying to blend that to create the argument of the series when in fact the concert was brief as to the rest of my argument  good morning can i start by asking you whether you have any of the agreements that are currently in dispute that of choice  choice of war and form or was in that the choice of form quartus or sentence is contained in the paragraph that is identified as a choice writing attached to any of the agreements under litigation i know it's asking a lot for you to speak for her but  i believe that we are dealing with this series of contracts and the question of the existence of the series contractors are actually series of events series of paths or however you want here term these things that it's the existence of the series that brings us here because the individual forget series for the moment let's assume  choice of log and and a choice of work if he choose of the events were to be standing on their own by virtue of the written contracts being unrelated to one another than i would say the answer would have to be no that there isn't a specific choice of aura that relates to nowhere is there a choice attached documents what do they consist of there are three there are three back there are three kinds tracts one is for shy hand and two are for dead yankees those are the performers and are those under any of those plaquemine step containing choice of form a choice of luck or we do not believe that there is any dispute at all including with respect to the amount that was all based upon the documents that are attached to the complaint well let me ask you this when the first illinois actually took place was there any money owed to the point say that that there was money owed for something that took place and i let me answer it in this way if you were to take the accounting for each of the individual concerts and only look at the accounting for that particular concert and look at  that was performed in illinois i would say yes by virtue of the fact that there were a series of crimes certs and you can't look at these as agree with that didn't he say that after the illinois answers there was no there was money owed but it was to me yes do you believe that there has to be some kind of money order or some dispute about the activity in illinois in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction in this case yes and if it's not clear from substantially connected to the state of illinois in order to exercise all right and if you kept three tracks now the the patrick in illinois was all right there is no written memorandum of anything that suggests that we could look at to determine what the terms part that was or what the one you use the word subcontract are you implying that there was a general contractor an overall agreement yes is corporation c m n is that we refuse to do any business with you when you have a lawsuit against them where that would they be in breach of anything not certain my so the what you're talking about are informal discussions you're talking about when i suggested perhaps of with your bone would ignore not that arrangement and go to somebody else you're not sure whether you'd have a cause of action that was your response right not entirely i said that the pens upon the timing of the question as to when you're asking training you would have to examine all the terms are the original offer and the acceptance and to the extent that you got a partial performance if you have a sufficient partial performance with respect to the original think that the agreement has it has been flushed out today would qualify as requirements tight agree ok what about the integration losses would you agree that the written documents that are in the record contain integration costs they do contain integration losses but i do not believe that what we do with tho while i do not believe that by having an integration cause and one contract and then you enter into another contract that isn't yet fulfill that the two contracts are took place yet and that there was an agreement with respect leahy in the event but there's nothing in any of this record to suggest that somehow there was an agreement to the floor of or the illinois out and again you have to take the allegations in the in the complaint and to the extent that they're not actually refuted and i do not see anything in this record where it says that mr pradelle comes in and says under agreement to have multiple accounts that each advance stood on its own and there were agreements for each individual that he they all or it that each event stood and fell on its own he did doing business one two three four right for your kid can't do that right now because the first of all you don't argue that there was general jurisdiction here secondly the trial court clearly was there really any anything that came out of illinois because it from from the testimony there's a suggestion by your client that we were running its app running its alley and so there was money owed from illinois but mr pub own says exactly the opposite we work running into at each of the three minutes stood out on their own and no money was sold from illinois so that's the question and you have a situation which is which has not ben the spewed in at all that after run in the event there may have been money or talk to each other maybe after three events that were done they were even to get into for reven one with respect to that is there anything else counsel that you would like to add if we were if we were we have no particular need for asking you any further question that i mean can you can you will two minutes do it for you yes counsel attempts to make a point out o the questioning that took place during the on the deposition of mr postponed which was limited to the discovery related to jurisdiction and that we had asked for the identity of a number of people what we had there were laws eight riots number of people who had received money from the money that mr pradelle had taken from the mohican sun and we were trying to find out who these people were and rare they were and where they were located these are all after the fact fact that a lot of those people were only in connecticut has nothing to do with whether or not they would even potentially be witnesses in the casa baksh and that are currently pending and i think that a total red herring that was raised by the oh by the defendant  the closest that you get to the claim by the defendant that there was no agreement with respect to series a saying that each all the contracts were the events i think each it it's all but that did not in any time actually refute the fact that there was never an agreement for an a series and i suggest that the defendant fail to truly was how wrong i run it's not me paragraph two or section two addressed jurisdiction both general and specific but again it was all it's not me you've got the wrong the fended trying to say the ballad these things were done by some corporation rather than by mr pradelle and then you've got to six fifteen motion to dismiss you also have you know that last answer would you would you agree that most of the audio was was related to the connecticut there were a few events and i don't remember right off hand the location but they were not and when i even events so the money eventually in the final illinois or else it might venture into what i was exploring whether it is a kind of a super