choice of venue provision contained in that contract upon my client so allegation of a breach they filed the matter in utah state court in reliance on that venue provision  bringing multiple counts against all three parties one of the counts was a success or an interest claim against mccomb was the party that relates to this appeal or theory those that call me is really the alter ego there otherwise it would just be them how will we know it finally a case in utah based upon the original contract the court you told me that determination that there was sufficient jurisdiction we don't have a record where i'm sorry if you don't have a record but we're talking about we're not talking about your complaint we're talking about your stiction correct ok and that's different and with regard to jurisdiction the way you believe jurisdiction was a pain was because of the and again our position would be that if they did by virtue of the successor allegation and that they never made it i think there was never a ruling made in the subsequent pleadings here that there was this issue of asset transfer that there was fact a factual basis for for success or claim in their  so i i i understand the courts i understand the case that you refer to judge which i think generally states that there's a there's a presumption if there was a determination  made by the originating court our position is that that that the absence of a determination doesn't necessarily preclude a finding but by virtue of or silent or perhaps a clear enough as to whether they made a finding as to jurisdiction otherwise you know any any default judgment in illinois which typically don't outline least in our experience the court doesn't make  correct so there could have been any litigation because why would snap litigate anything in favor of mccall not having them not him jurisdiction over mccall stamp is arguing that utah didn't have requiring jurisdiction over a party that's correct and i would agree with that point and i would i would say if if hypothetically this were a case where there were a successor in interest allegations where it was merely let's say it was a completely same party signed the contract but they aren't inherently a factual issue right correct so you have a course of action for success or liability whatever they wish to avoid by creating a new entity diverting their assets that ends up unfortunately they do it all the time i think and that's why there are those causes of action that permit the party that your client party that there is actually alter ego and that they're bound by the obligations of party including contractual obligations so so we would argue that there has to be over a limit to that cat and mouse challenge that alter ego allegation it's a fact based inquiry that should have been made in utah and where we where we outlined where our position is that work exceeded their the bounds of their inquiry was looking into the factual allegations of the successor interest claim in the court in utah in trying to make some determination as to whether it i'm going around the circle i can appreciate that if the contract itself says we're going to litigate anything in utah and the contract itself says oh and by the way this includes successor does say they haven't otherwise defended and the time to respond to defend is expiring but there's nothing in this wouldn't specifically say see for example under orders one could have said  ruling the court and this is what we took issue to in our public prefers that the court focused in on the the strength of the successor interest money and whether it was suffici