with all due respect to the district court we believe this case involves a grievous abuse of discretion and fit i want to highlight four areas of the issues the first one i want to deal with is the purposeful of ailment prong of the personal jurisdiction test and what i want to highlight here is that is really the facts of this case in light of the guidance that's provided by the asahi case and business from california residents and i saved both direct and vicarious because we have evidence of both we have on the direct side plentiful evidence that one of  misrepresentations are alleged to have it's right at the plaintiffs in this case so we had actual direct participation in the representations themselves so we have that but we have much more than that because what we have underlying everything here is a partnership between samsung one of the largest corporations in the world in partnership with the landowner of the land in korea that the building sam was was on and this partnership therefore placed these parties the sales digits the landowner the contractor in the shoes of one another so when the when when there were acts of misrepresentations by for example the sales arm of this partnership those acts were on behalf of all of the coffee partners including samsung so at one point in their brief samsung says the shoes of its partners including the sales in the korean litigation involving the project still it's first of all i'm not sure but i believe it's not over it's not concluded i believe there is still injunctive relief interest which prevents the our clients from occupying the project but your clients are parties to that litigation no they're not now but they are the object of engine of an injunction that prevents them from occupying the united i believe the order of fact affects them but that litigation from my knowledge is brought samsung for nonpayment by the landowner and the landowners defenses while you've constructed a defective building and therefore there were deviations from our agreement therefore we're not going to pay so that if they're fighting over the construction we of course here are fighting over the fact that we were misled by all of the parties including s of why we're here the first thing that the court focused on was that there's this other litigation in korea and then that feeling of the court didn't say it that goes to that one of seven factors that talks about conflict of sovereignty now is this court set in share that kind of issue is best resolved in choice of law not the jurisdiction so although it's an element i mean when i see how does that interfere with the sovereignty if i think only the extent there's a choice to blushing but if there is any conflict in choice of law and that's that's why we addressed our concern over that element to the sure court comment that really if there is any conflict it's just an choice of law the second part and of course that litigation over construction doesn't have anything to do with the litigation here which is of course the common law c fraud in the sale of that project the second thing that the court there's two other things that the court relied on there i we think are clear error first it's said that well korea is an adequate forum that's certainly not the test in personal jurisdiction or even then you just talking about personal jurisdiction so that's clearly not the test and so that that basis for the court's order just is almost novelty and then the final thing that the court relied on the militants is what was underlying the course general feeling on the issue is that this whole case is about korean language korean written language cream spoken language and  i think korean buildings korean buildings korean planes but you know nowadays and certainly in california that that is hardly a big deal for either the litigants or the court translators appear all the time in court and i is really a dispute over a condominium project that's located in korea the purchasers intended to live there for a hundred days or more a year the buyers were predominantly either korean nationals or korean american citizen who travel for business or pleasure frequently to korea the builder the landowner the finance two years are all in korea and we've got to find that he clearly aired in ruling that korea was the the better location and in that he's faced with the fact that is already litigation pending there have how how do we declare all that to be clear error that no rational judge could have come to that well first lawyer and i don't i think i don't think that that is the proper standard right on appeal how my well i think you're wrong because it into two parts one is the the burden that was on the moving party below and that burden of course involves two things first the comp inconvenient first and some to come here it's that it's so gravely difficult and inconvenient that samsung is unfairly at a severe disadvantage so really you know the focus is on samsung and whether it ma burden below a compelling case to prove that it was would be so severely disadvantaged and that's that's what we're dealing with we're not just dealing with law let's balance that and yeah maybe free is more convenient because that's not the personal for reviewing decision that the district court does not have jurisdiction that's that was the ruling in a district court right over the sampson yes yes that's a that's and that's why i say that we don't have to prove a clear case that you don't have to find a clear case as to what that second clause is quite frankly i'm not sure i'm ready to accept your assumption that that's permissive that looks awfully mandatory to me so that's what was for the korean as i read that i read the cla the form of selection clause with this of paragraph three of article eighteen that you were reading out of why is that not mandatory because it refers to the court that has jurisdiction with the koreans to judge it was an action with the motion to dismiss to help him interpret the meaning of that second clause there was a copy of the civil procedure act he just gave in the statute sure i quite understand that maybe i didn't hear it well you say we agree that all controversies under this case shall be determined by the place where the property is which everybody knows is korea or  the place designated by the korean procedure ethic and whatever it is and don't know well you know those those kinds of issues there's a lot of things that down the line might come to their choice of law but that's that's choice of line for personal jurisdiction purposes we're looking at seven elements you're looking at due process fairness resolve the problem with the plaintiffs that's the extent of its involvement in california plaintiffs contend that somehow samsung was a partner of the other two companies that were involved in the development of this building in downtown seoul they submitted no absolutely not one shred of evidence to support that what they say is we can rely on the pleading but what they can rely on the pleadings are facts that they allege we cannot rely on legal conclusions there are no facts at all in the complaint that indicate that this is a partnership how is with the offering of a condominium apartments that your client sent a representative to koreatown who allegedly made material misrepresentations which induced the plaintiffs to buy i mean that's sounds when you get to step two reasonable the court looks and says well how much purposeful they all know was there so what i'm saying is there was very limited purposeful available there was one contract meeting where their own laziness representations maybe i mean for us to have a lay by my prior experiences as a lawyer but you know i can think of cases involving the travel industry where you know are hotel is extremely limited it's not continuous it's not systematic it relates to only one contract it is not a hotel sitting in las vegas constantly trying to sell rooms to people in california you know any of you out  overwhelming burden on that foreign defendant and courts should be especially reluctant to impose personal jurisdiction on foreign defendants as distinct from posing it on citizens of the united states who are in other states the property obviously is in korea almost all the conceivable evidence in this case is in korea the only exception is what the plaintiffs sa seminar everything else is in korean and the plane is basically quite that their fundamental claim here is you solve the building and it wasn't any good now how are we going to resolve that go see the building have architects testify have people who are involved in the construction testify look at what the building looks like they say it's not like the brochures how do you do that you can look at the buildings all the documents inquiry all the payments were in korean currency all of the witnesses except the plaintiffs speak korean everything is in korea the foreign defendant the third issue is this question of conflict with korea sovereignty in georgia can be you ask well is there really a conflict here and i submit what there is is a very strong possibility of a conflict you can't know for sure whether there's going to be a conflict i mean if you don't know what's going to be decided in this litigation but what is true is there is a korean court deciding issues that are at the core are not saying we have that but there are aspects of that which is that there are claims here that same song did not build the building in accordance with the requirements of korean law so there are going to be people here who are going to testify about what is career require when you build a building in downtown seoul and those people are going to be people in seoul who are involved in that business in the government so i said that's that there's a strong possibility of conflict with korean sovereignty fourth what is the most efficient place to resolve this overwhelmingly that has to be korea certainly judge lou understood that trying this case in the central district of california in los downtown los angeles was not going to be even vaguely close to the most efficient form for that kind of trial that factor is overwhelmingly in favor of the burden on the defendant but even if you consider the impact on the plaintiffs as we pointed out in our brief the plaintiffs say repeatedly and i quote the development was to serve as a home away from home to individuals willing in the united states and traveling to korea unquote quote where individuals are korean ancestry to reside in the u s but who also travel and live for extended periods of time in seoul could live and work on quote there is no inconvenience to the plaintiffs the whole purpose of entering into this transaction was to have a place to live in seoul because they went there all the time they live there and they work there simply is no burden on the plaintiffs and the last factor is whether there is an adequate alternative form plaintiffs have not submitted anything to suggest that korea would not provide an adequate form and that was their burden to do so so when we add up all these factors what do we end up with there is limited very much interest in this case and why is that because the plaintiffs bought the properties as an investment to make money the brochures they say are fal are filled with statements that we set out in our grief on page thirty seven about how this is a great investment you're going to make a lot of money that's one of the big reasons i stated what the interest if they were for idea of representation is even the state isn't necessarily prejudiced as far as i've been able to discern against people who are trying to make money you know but as this court said in ellicott when california citizens quote seek their fortune away from home particularly when they compete for a slice of foreign policy i made it part entirely from foreign materials and intended primarily for foreign consumption unquote california has only a very minimal interest in the case and that's our point this is essentially i mean when you cut through all this what's this about what it's all about is the building in korea that's what it's all about which the united states has only the most tangential connection there so we said we have when you weigh all those factors we are entitled to prevail here the other issue that exists in this case is the question of is a federal rule of civil procedure forty two point one i believe my understanding of that rule is that the court can rely on anything it can rely on a legal clear that you can go in consideration and watch freedoms at this point just like you could consider any other lawful so it's not obvious to us why the court can't consider an expert well i guess the purpose the romantic historically concerning the contract shall be referred to the law court that is designated pursuant to the and i'm adding a word korean's civil proceedings that's the act that controls here that the parties agreed to and that court has to be a korean court the parties didn't provide for an american court to interpret the civil proceedings act of course warm selection clauses are enforce indeed i don't understand plaintiff's counsel to argue that they are not their only other responses to say this isn't mandatory it seems to me it's quite obvious to mandatory because it says all in shall i don't stay in the condominiums up to a maximum of one hundred twenty days a year yet they reserved at least a month in advance the use of the condominium or apartment and they had to the first address of the motion that we considered as we pointed out in our opposition it's one thing for the court to consider relevant material or source in the term in determining foreign law because that's what the rule forty four point one goes to but that forty four point one beyond you know grabbing a book from the shelf and actually getting into an expert evidence battle we would like an opportunity to address that issue but anyway that's not a big issue because another court  consider a wise decision in the first place but getting back to what i wanted to talk about very briefly and i don't have that much time but you know again i did not hear anything from counsel the deny that this was a partnership and i just rest on that and just one more amplification of that he says well we were just the construction part of the partnership there was a sales part there was the owner part well that's you know that's the whole purpose of a partnership lots of times as partners have different roles with each other but as far as that thirty third party who's injured is concerned injured by the partnership far as they're concerned you're all in it together guys and so it's not enough for them to say i did this and you know i'm insulated from what he did that's not how a partnership law worse counsel knows that and that and they just haven't denied that it's a partnership talking about burden  know everything just i hear over and over glossed over the fact that the this is a fraud action in the fraud was perpetrated here it's as as you're on a pointed out there's so many cases these days with computers and internet  solicitations i just tiny little electronic touches of somebody ten thousand miles away we have much much more than one and then the thing and another thing is fact if you're going to try this misrepresentation case i think  the point was made by mr hyde if you that you're going to have to get into the actual condition of the property what were the representations that were made what did samsung actually build or fail to bill i mean isn't the proof of the fraud part and parcel of the evidence that is presumably before the korean core right now as to whether or not the building was built in conformity with building codes and the contractual provision i think there's no question that this product will involve some of the elements that are going through there's no question about that but just the presence of that factor is certainly not enough to prevent the federal courts in this country from litigating a case where residents were defrauded here even though it related to a building elsewhere because the fact that the test is not just similarity of issues test is whether those issues are nearly lawsuit there's no question about that as of lies you've got inconsistent verdicts one from the united states federal district court and another from a korean district court well but it is the same in essence based on the same path and issue in korea just is not dispositive of what happened here to these plaintiffs and just one morning i knew there was something that i wanted to say just the condo's that as your honor pointed out the law and the regulations are quite fr condominiums in general are lots is no question about that the backer had to do with a fourteen day time share and a fourteen day timeshare is it is on the other side of that spectrum from a condominium now granted we are in a mixed used piece of property but because the regulations are so broadly construed in the so liberal we fall much more under the condominium definition than the times your definition and with that i would just in that thank you